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

121–130 of 232 posts

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

#121

Post by munk-a »

andrew_v4 wrote: post #67
chillacy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one balance that with the counter desire to not want to go to a wedding, concert, football game, or plane with unvaccinated people?

It's a big shift because we have never as a society catered to the most cowardly before. Personal responsibility used to mean if you cared about something it was on you, now its shifted to forcing it on other people. This is really antithetical to western values.

I'm still waiting for the M1 Abrams I ordered to show up on my door step - I can't comprehend why anyone would object to me commuting to work in a tank.

Freedom is a process of give and take - the only way to have perfect freedom is to deny freedom from everyone else (since you're declaring your choices more important than those around you). We (I assume you mean America - where I was born and raised but since emigrated from) have never had unlimited freedom - rights and privileges have always been limited by the interests of others from traffic laws to gun ownership and even to mere communication.

I will say that the US has tried quite hard to be on the side of individual freedom over societal freedom and health whenever possible (which has led to some side effects) - that certainly can't be argued. But the US is not an anarchist state and the presence of laws - even of encoded privileges - dictates the lack of full freedom.

There's another level to consider that is a bit more rare in discussions like this though. You don't have the personal value to be held responsible for your actions - if you happen to be the person who mutates a new strain of the virus over irresponsible actions then it sucks for the rest of us since you're judgement proof. When it comes to the trillions of dollars in lost economic productivity that you should be on the hook for we can't collect even a fraction of that.

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

#122

Post by arcticfox »

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #111
histriosum wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

IMO the position that someone should be free from all consequences is the meaningless idea.

Someone not taking the vaccine is imposing consequences on everyone else around them and society at large, raising the risk of immune-escape variants, raising transmission risk to people that can't take it for medical reasons, raising the risk even for vaccine-protected people by defeating herd immunity (J&J gives 72% protection, so you're running a fair risk if the rest of society isn't vaccinated.)

The consequences you complain of are pretty much just pricing in those externalities to the decision.

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

#123

Post by lholoubek »

sp332 wrote: post #10
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #4

I just read the linked Axios article, so perhaps there is more in the CDC decision, but seems like it would make the most sense to just recommend against the J&J vaccine for anyone at higher risk of clot (e.g. all 6 of the people who had clots were women of childbearing age). With 3 good vaccines available, seems like there is plenty (or shortly will be plenty) to go around even if the J&J vaccine only goes to those…

I don't think the usual risk factors for clotting apply here. These cases were rare enough to stand out at just 1 per million. The clotting seems to be a specific immune response similar to some people who clot when given heparin.

FWIW, the ACIP meeting today shared that another ~7 cases were discovered. In a particular group - women between 30-39 - the numbers were more like 1 in 100k. Still very small odds, but greater than the "one in a million" widely quoted, particularly for certain age groups. Good coverage of the updated data today here: https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1385661019494699010

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

#124

Post by passivate »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #110
passivate wrote: post #9

This is great news! I'm holding out for the J&J shot myself :) I find it to be a better product than the others.

I was under the impression adenovirus based vaccines are worse in the long run because the adenovirus acts as a vehicle for the proteins we're immunizing against (coivd) and that immunity can also occur against the adenovirus rendering it useless as a vehicle for proteins in the future.

Yes, there are certain strains that wouldn't work as vectors. HAd26 (used in J&J) has not shown reduced immunogenicity based on studies conducted. It was used in other vaccines previously, and that hasn't impacted its performance here. While it's not a problem now, the situation might change in the future, so you were right to ask the question. These issues of pre-existing immunity are taken seriously inside vaccine companies too.

(Note that while I work in biotech, I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic, so don't take these as definitive claims of truth. People shouldn't be taking HN comments as a source of any kind of medical advice anyway.)

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

#125

Post by [deleted] »

ghaff wrote: post #43
ForHackernews wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean you'll have to fulfil certain legal requirements in order to be permitted entry to a foreign country? Surely that's unprecedented!

Yellow Fever vaccinations in particular have been commonly required for a variety of countries, hence WHO yellow vaccination book.

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by not2b »

ggm wrote: post #106
rel2thr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdote is that I got the JJ and kinda regret it, this blood clot thing made me realize it’s pretty untested , I feel like they should be recommending everyone get a full panel blood test a week after to add more data. After the AZ issues there should have been more scrutiny of the early clot cases

Kind of untested: sorry that's just wrong. All these shots are tested by 40,000 or more people. The problems emerging now are in the one in 100,000 or more. Do the maths on the odds.

More like 1 in 500k. The CDC reports that as of April 21 there have been a total of 15 confirmed cases of this blood clotting condition among nearly eight million doses administered. You probably won't find an issue that rare if you test 40k people.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blood-clots-and-t...

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

#127

Post by mssundaram »

ggm wrote: post #106
rel2thr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdote is that I got the JJ and kinda regret it, this blood clot thing made me realize it’s pretty untested , I feel like they should be recommending everyone get a full panel blood test a week after to add more data. After the AZ issues there should have been more scrutiny of the early clot cases

Kind of untested: sorry that's just wrong. All these shots are tested by 40,000 or more people. The problems emerging now are in the one in 100,000 or more. Do the maths on the odds.

Compared to other vaccines, 40,000 is "kinda untested"

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

#128

Post by not2b »

ibejoeb wrote: post #85
chillacy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one balance that with the counter desire to not want to go to a wedding, concert, football game, or plane with unvaccinated people?

That's a strange desire because what does it matter? If you were worried, you would have gotten vaccinated, and unless you don't believe the vaccine works, you would be protected. It's also something that is impossible to know because you don't have the right to inspect someone's medical records.

If a large pool of people refuse the vaccine, they will eventually breed variants that make the vaccine less effective. To wipe out Covid, we need enough people vaccinated so that the disease dies out (doesn't have to be everyone), because the virus can't find enough new people to infect.

And a small fraction of people who are vaccinated won't develop a proper immune response, so they are still vulnerable. Nevertheless, once enough people are vaccinated it will die out.

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

#129

Post by sgc »

ggm wrote: post #106
rel2thr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdote is that I got the JJ and kinda regret it, this blood clot thing made me realize it’s pretty untested , I feel like they should be recommending everyone get a full panel blood test a week after to add more data. After the AZ issues there should have been more scrutiny of the early clot cases

Kind of untested: sorry that's just wrong. All these shots are tested by 40,000 or more people. The problems emerging now are in the one in 100,000 or more. Do the maths on the odds.

It's obviously not well tested enough to not get pulled out of use despite the pandemic, so more testing as we move forward seems appropriate. OP has a point, although the form of testing will probably be one less likely to cause people to avoid the vaccine.

Also, what are the odds of a 1 in 10k concern not being picked up as such in a 40k sample size? It would look like background noise if it was only one case in that particular group.

To be clear, I am very much pro continuing use of the vaccine, but it's not the case that every possible 1 in 40k or less concern has been discovered since we had one such group go through a controlled study. Since the odds of COVID causing serious problems are far, far higher than that, it is still a win, but we should of course learn as we go.

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

#130

Post by adrianmonk »

hammock wrote: post #99
_wldu wrote: post #77

I had Covid in March 2020. It almost did me in. Was in ICU for a while. Had the J&J shot three weeks ago. Did not feel a thing. My arm was slightly sore at injection site. Nothing else. I guess my body was used to it and just sort of shrugged it off. Some of my friends who got J&J were sick for a few days, but rebounded quickly after that.

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

For one thing, the CDC recommends it in their FAQ.

From https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html :

> If I have already had COVID-19 and recovered, do I still need to get vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine?

> Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible—although rare—that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again.

Another thing is that, although it hasn't been scientifically studied yet, there are some reports that getting vaccinated has helped some COVID long haulers with their symptoms:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/31/9827994...

Post reply on HN