Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 232 posts

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#111

Post by kosievdmerwe »

histriosum wrote: post #54
ibejoeb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent. Presently, you won't be thrown in jail if you don't get it. But you can't go to NYU. You can't go to a wedding. You can't go to a concert, or a football game, you can't fly Qantas...

Yes. You are free to make a choice, not free from the consequences of that choice.

This is a meaningless statement. It pretty much makes the idea of "coercion" impossible.

"The mugger didn't force you give him your money. You could have chosen to say no. You being killed is just you not being free of the consequences of your choice".

Imposing consequences on people is coercing them to make the choice you want them to. None of the consequences mentioned are natural consequences, like getting sick from the disease, but additional consequences someone decided on.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#112

Post by hammock »

henhouse wrote: post #107
hammock wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prompted you to get a vaccine when you have already developed immunity?

Because from what has been observed, the immunity doesn’t last long, and you can get COVID more than once. Apparently around 8 months. Source: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/two-stud...

The studies have only gone on for, at most, 8 months. So for every time period studied so far, including the longest possible time periods, people retain immunity. Perhaps use this science to revise your initial belief/statement.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#113

Post by hammock »

_wldu wrote: post #100
hammock wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prompted you to get a vaccine when you have already developed immunity?

Unspoken workplace requirement. Sort of peer pressure, too, I guess. Also, I did not want to make others (around me) uncomfortable.

Thanks for your honesty

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#114

Post by quickthrowman »

jollybean wrote: post #96

This is great, but a gigantic Public Communications disaster. I had a vax-sceptic friend send me an article from a reputable source, quoting claims from the National Health Agencies and WHO etc. about the 'blood clots' which essentially conclude that 'they are rare and treatable' ... but my friends 'interpretation' was that the vax was 'unsafe'. She literally couldn't grasp that the data in the article was supposed t…

> From the FDA: "Out of every 10,000 women taking birth control pills, 3 to 9 of them will develop a blood clot".

> That is about 100x greater than clotting from AstraZeneca Vaccine, and 10's of millions of American women are taking it daily. Now that's context.

More context: the vaccine clots have been in the brain, birth control clots tend to occur in the legs (and rarely in the lungs). You can use heparin to treat the latter, but heparin could make the brain clot from the vaccine worse. I’m no medical professional, so I’ll let this article do the heavy lifting: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/23/fac...

Despite that, the odds seem to favor using the J&J vaccine based on numbers. The reported clot cases and total vaccines are 6 in 6.7 million with 1 death. If those odds are extrapolated, this means approximately 1150 people would die if everyone on earth received the J&J vaccine, and 6600 would have blood clots.

All of the cases were in women of roughly child-bearing age, give them an option/priority for the mRNA vaccines, see if clots occur in other demographic groups.

I had the J&J shot, and would do so again.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#115

Post by adrr »

nostromo wrote: post #66

Now maybe the US can finally approve the AstraZeneca vaccine and put our 20 million (!) doses on hand to good use. Or not! But if we’re not going to use them, we should send them to another country like Canada or Mexico or Australia or the UK or EU, all of which have approved it and administered millions of doses. Sitting on 10s of millions of vaccines during a pandemic is inexcusable.

Does the US even need the AZ vaccine? Just took a look at https://www.vaccinateca.com/ and there are lots of open slots for appointments. Got a shot yesterday with a next day appointment at a super site and they mentioned things are slowing down. We should give them to our neighbors. Or allow J&J vaccine to be available for people visiting the US.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#116

Post by lukeboi »

sxcurry wrote: post #95
nostromo wrote: post #66

Now maybe the US can finally approve the AstraZeneca vaccine and put our 20 million (!) doses on hand to good use. Or not! But if we’re not going to use them, we should send them to another country like Canada or Mexico or Australia or the UK or EU, all of which have approved it and administered millions of doses. Sitting on 10s of millions of vaccines during a pandemic is inexcusable.

Just a reminder that AstraZeneca has not applied yet to the FDA for emergency use authorization.

Companies generally don’t apply for FDA authorization unless they’re confident they’ll pass. From my limited experience in the bio/med industry companies are usually in contact with the FDA and it’s a really bad look if you get a rejection.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#117

Post by hammock »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #104
hammock wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prompted you to get a vaccine when you have already developed immunity?

Immunity is not permanent. We know people who got infected more than once.

Even taking the data least charitable to my postulate, a study[1] (which there are issues with that I will not mention) using a sample of 63 million medical records found a reinfection rate of 0.48% compared to 2.2% infection rate for the previously uninfected.

This study therefore estimated protection against reinfection was 78.8%.

That's higher than the 72% efficacy offered by the J&J vaccine.

[1]https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/l-tls031821....

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#118

Post by mancerayder »

Fomite wrote: post #61
mancerayder wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I am arguing above. In light of this, would you say the pause was good science and not politics?

Yes. The pause was exactly what should have been done, and every single vaccine specialist I know was both supportive and unsurprised.

Your confidence is unwarranted, and we don't know who you are or the significance of "every single vaccine specialist [you] know"? Just moments ago a Bloomberg summary popped into my inbox and a link from "The pause of the J&J vaccine was not without its controversy" and a link from there has this as the last sentence of the article:

In the meantime, health officials will need to convince the public to take J&J’s shot. Americans’ confidence in Covid-19 vaccines continues to rise, according to a poll from the de Beaumont Foundation, an advocacy group focused on public health. But it has taken a toll on trust in J&J’s shot, specifically, with nearly one-third of respondents saying they’d never take the single-dose vaccine.

(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-23/five-thin...)

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#119

Post by mancerayder »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #90
mancerayder wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the citation include the recent major skepticism of Astra? There are French polls that backed major skepticism of Astra specifically after the pause. The downvotes are puzzling. Are people capable of countering with reason, or is a downvote a proxy vote for how they wish reality to be?

They're perhaps downvoting because what was described was "studies" (not "the citation"), that were about credibility and uncertainly generally, and it's safe to assume they weren't conducted in the past 4 months and have nothing to do with covid vaccines, but you jump in with "well your study means nothing to me unless it was conducted in the past two months and already peer reviewed and published" which is not how…

Thanks. I posted a link from a Bloomberg-quoted poll above that meets the criteria you suggested means something to you.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#120

Post by hwbehrens »

hammock wrote: post #112
henhouse wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because from what has been observed, the immunity doesn’t last long, and you can get COVID more than once. Apparently around 8 months. Source: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/two-stud...

The studies have only gone on for, at most, 8 months. So for every time period studied so far, including the longest possible time periods, people retain immunity. Perhaps use this science to revise your initial belief/statement.

While I mostly agree, there have been a few rare cases of reinfection; here [0] is a metastudy that looks at several claims of reinfection, ultimately concluding that 6 cases were credible reinfections. So while the relative risk is very low, I think one could make a plausible argument that since the risk of harmful side effects is also low, getting vaccinated may be beneficial.

There is also preliminary evidence [1] to indicate that post-infection vaccination can help to resolve lingering symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness, and insomnia.

[0]: https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)305...

[1]: https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr296506

Post reply on HN