CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by gojomo » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

bentlegen wrote: post #136

kibwen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

That was one time, and those vaccines were on the cusp of expiring. https://globalnews.ca/news/7728936/astrazeneca-vaccine-doses...

I've been wondering about the shelf life of that "loan", and while it's reasonable to surmise it was early batches with a limited life, it doesn't look like that article is specifically describing the US shipment as near-expiration.

But: a bigger problem is that most came from the troubled Emergent Biosolutions plant, never FDA-certified, where all of its J&J production has been held back from US use:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/us/astrazeneca-covid-vacc...

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

#152

Post by pdog » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

adrianmonk wrote: post #130

hammock wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 COV…

> That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19.

Since when has not knowing something been justification for intervention?

Given that people have been getting sick from COVID-19 for at least as long as vaccines have been available for testing, shouldn't experts have a reasonable understanding of whether previously infected people are as protected as recently vaccinated people, or how often (or rare) it is that people can be infected with the virus again?

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

#153

Post by mikem170 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

m-p-3 wrote: post #144

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

The average risk of thrombosis the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccine have are between 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 250,000. To put some perspective, estrogen-based medication like the contraceptive pill have a risk of 1 in 1,000.

Careful, You might be comparing apples and oranges...

Contraceptive pill blood clot risk is for any type of blood clot, such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, etc [0].

The vaccine cerebral venous sinus thrombosis blood clot risk is something like 1 in 100k+ (as you mentioned), but during J&J FDA trials of 20k people there were 50% more blood clots of other various types in the vaccinated group [1] (15 blood clots in vaccinated group versus 10 in the placebo group, which the FDA did not consider statistically significant at the time)

You may be comparing fatal-only vaccine blood clots to non-fatal contraception blood clots, and ignoring non-fatal vaccine blood clots.

I'm not saying this to throw the vaccine under the bus, just pointing out that the comparison of the odds you presented might not be fair.

[0] https://thefemedic.com/contraception/blood-clots-thrombosis-...

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-...

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

#154

Post by kosievdmerwe » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #122

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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% protecti…

How is your comment relevant to mine?

The thrust of my argument is that imposing negative consequences (irrespective of reason) is a form of coercion. There are many things that ought to be coerced, but it is ridiculous to assert in the face of imposed consequences that people aren't being coerced or forced into taking vaccines.

People might not want to state it that strongly and the coercion isn't as strong as what criminals or the government can impose, but it's still someone or someones using their power to enforce behavior on others.

And couching that in phrases like "pricing in those externalities" doesn't change this. In fact it makes it more blatant.

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

#155

Post by _2d30 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #143

_2d30 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I prefer drug safety protocols be based on science, not what people feel, or whether or not it's "good politics". Implicit to this point is that what the CDC/FDA did was "good science" and not bad science.

No, implicit to the point is that what the CDC/FDA did was follow the ongoing drug safety monitoring protocols that have long been established for Emergency Use Authorization.

Why are you so wed to the idea that these protocols are in some sense correct? So many people have basically asserted infallibility for the CDC/FDA throughout this pandemic despite their consistent failures across huge swaths of the response from border lockdowns to masks and of course to this non-sensical pause.

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

#156

Post by grandmczeb » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:04 AM UTC

rel2thr wrote: post #94

hcurtiss wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're doing anecdata, I too had the J&J shot right before it was cancelled. Literally no symptoms whatsoever. Very happy with the "one and done" relative to my wife who will go in next week for the second Pfizer shot, which has clobbered everyone else in our neighborhood who took it.

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

> I feel like they should be recommending everyone get a full panel blood test a week after to add more data.

Why? That would that be a ridiculously impractical recommendation (do we even have the capacity to run millions of full panel blood tests a week?) and completely useless for detecting the problems people are worried about. TTS[1] isn’t something subtle you need a blood test for.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...

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

#157

Post by mikem170 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

jonplackett wrote: post #17

joe_the_user wrote: post #3

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…

> For there J+J vaccine, it's also a 1 in a million risk, but just of getting the clots, not dying.

Are you sure about this? I thought the J&J 1 in a million number was deaths, from cerebral venous sinus thrombosis blood clots? Isn't that why they paused this vaccine?

There are many other kinds of blood clots (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, etc). During J&J FDA trials they found a 50% increase in blood clots of any type in the vaccinated group [0], which they did not consider statistically significant at the time (20k people, 15 versus 10 blood clots in the unvacinated group). That might be an increased 1 in 4k risk of a blood clot from the vaccine, with the fatal ones being 1 in a million so far.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-...

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

#158

Post by mikem170 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:15 AM UTC

not2b wrote: post #128

ibejoeb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Neverthele…

We will never wipe out covid, because it also is transmitted in a couple species of animals. We'd have to kill/vaccinate bats, civets, minks, etc.

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

#159

Post by jandrewrogers » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

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...

Immunity lasts a long time in the vast, vast majority of people. People that survived SARS-CoV-1 still have strong immune response almost two decades later. You are improperly conflating lack of antibodies with lack of immunity, they are not the same thing. Antibodies are the product of active infection, not having immunity.

It is unhelpful and disingenuous to suggest that lack of antibodies imply lack of immunity or that rare edge cases are the norm. In disease, there are always edge cases.

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

#160

Post by mikem170 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

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…

> If there is a 'marginal risk' of 4 in 1 million of 'blood clotting' and it's entirely treatable

I completely agree with what you are saying, but wanted to point out that the risk of a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis blood clot risk is something like 4 in 1 million, but there are other kinds of blood clots (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, etc).

During J&J FDA trials of 20k people there were 50% more blood clots of other various types in the vaccinated group [0] (15 blood clots in vaccinated group versus 10 in the placebo group, which the FDA did not consider statistically significant at the time).

It might not be fair to compare J&J cerebral venous sinus thrombosis blood clots only to blood clots of any type from birth control pills.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-...