131–140 of 232 posts
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.
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.
I'm under the impression that the US has been sending its AZ doses to Canada and Mexico since mid-March: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/us-astrazeneca...
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?
The Trumps both received vaccines before leaving the Whitehouse even though they had prior covid infection. I know at least 4 people with prior covid infection who have received vaccines
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinic...
>Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. People should be offered vaccination regardless of history of prior symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral testing to assess for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection or serologic testing to assess for prior infection is not recommended for the purposes of vaccine decision-making.
Excellent news. The unfortunate thing is the level of ignorance today mistakes a very careful effort make sure the vaccine is safe with a wanton ignoring of some danger. Beyond talking about the fact that they determined this was safe, at some point educating people on danger in statistical terms is going to be necessary. But I'm not sure how that happens - addiction to headline-logic and single-heart-pulling-events…
I made a website recently to try and do what I think you're talking about. http://whatoneinamillionmeans.com The idea is to compare the risk of death from the AZ vaccine from blood clots (1 in a million so far) with the risks we take all the time without worrying. For there J+J vaccine, it's also a 1 in a million risk, but just of getting the clots, not dying. The point is to show the fallacy of comparing the risk of…
Your denominator could be wrong when you factor in the attributes of the individual considering the shot. Are the blood clots appearing entirely randomly or are they happening more frequently in an identifiable sub-group of vaccine recipients? In the case of the J+J vaccine all the blood clots happened in women 18-48 years old.
https://www.insider.com/blood-clots-after-jj-covid-vaccine-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a website recently to try and do what I think you're talking about. http://whatoneinamillionmeans.com The idea is to compare the risk of death from the AZ vaccine from blood clots (1 in a million so far) with the risks we take all the time without worrying. For there J+J vaccine, it's also a 1 in a million risk, but just of getting the clots, not dying. The point is to show the fallacy of comparing the risk of…
The most important comparison is the risk of getting severe covid and/or dying from it if unvaccinated . It's tricky cause it depends on what you do (you get to do more once you are vaccinated), as well as the ever-changing rate of infection in the community where you are (which will change as more people get vaccinated among other things). But in general, your risk of having severe complications from covid if unvacc…
For older people, getting the vaccine is a no brainer. The risk of covid is high, they can't see their grand kids etc, so they're lining up to get vaccinated.
For young people, the risk from Covid is low, but we need everyone to get vaccinated anyway because that's the only way to stop it spreading, infecting more vulnerable people, maybe even mutating enough to escape the vaccine.
So what this is about is asking people who might not be at that much risk from covid, to get a vaccine that they're also not that much at risk from (but might worry about with all the negative headlines), in order to save all the other people and the economy and country / world as a whole.
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.
> we should send them to another country like Canada or Mexico I'm under the impression that the US has been sending its AZ doses to Canada and Mexico since mid-March: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/18/us-astrazeneca...
https://globalnews.ca/news/7728936/astrazeneca-vaccine-doses...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a website recently to try and do what I think you're talking about. http://whatoneinamillionmeans.com The idea is to compare the risk of death from the AZ vaccine from blood clots (1 in a million so far) with the risks we take all the time without worrying. For there J+J vaccine, it's also a 1 in a million risk, but just of getting the clots, not dying. The point is to show the fallacy of comparing the risk of…
> For there J+J vaccine, it's also a 1 in a million risk, but just of getting the clots, not dying. Your denominator could be wrong when you factor in the attributes of the individual considering the shot. Are the blood clots appearing entirely randomly or are they happening more frequently in an identifiable sub-group of vaccine recipients? In the case of the J+J vaccine all the blood clots happened in women 18-48 y…
Do you know if anyone has died from the J+J one? Because that's what I am comparing with for the AZ one, so it's actually in that sense less risky that AZ anyway.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Or the people making the decision are incredibly risk averse and don't mind an extra few hundred or thousand Covid deaths to save a single person with a blood clot.
>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.
It's a specific type of blood clot that is incredibly rare and occurs more often in young women. If it had a 1 in 10k rarity it would have probably been found
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why you think it's a better product? Genuinely curious as I haven't done much comparison myself.
Adenovirus-based vaccines have existed a while, so it is not as new as mRNA vaccines are. That is my reason. Why the downvotes? it is a legit answer to the OP's question