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

191–200 of 232 posts

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

#191

Post by sgc »

JamesBarney wrote: post #139
sgc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's obviously not well tested enough to not get pulled out of use despite the pandemic 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…

I never said anything like "the blood clot risk might be 1 in 10k". I said that there can be things that come up a lot more than 1 in 100k that were not found in the trials (not referring to anything specific, just unknown unknowns), and it is not appropriate to stop looking for side effects just because we have done some testing.

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

#192

Post by sgc »

ggm wrote: post #145
sgc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Its not 1 in 10k. You're overstating the risk. It's because its not 1 in 10k it was only picked up after mass vaccination began. See? you're inflating risk and misunderstanding consequences. How many people die, if nobody is vaccinated compared to a 1 in 100,000 risk of clotting? A lot more than 1 in 100,000 die from covid.

As I said to someone else, I was referring to unknown unknowns and the need to stay vigilant, not to blood clot risks specifically. And I stated expressly that I think the vaccinations should continue. But let's not just stop learning. It's not a big ask.

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

#193

Post by dehrmann »

adrr wrote: post #115
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.

I also got one recently in the Bay Area. There were a lot of appointments available. It was at a medium-sized site set up for 4-8x the volume. Most of the people in my small group were there for their second shot.

If you look at the national vaccination rate, it looks like it's starting to level off. J&J makes up a small portion of vaccinations in the US, so especially seeing how appointments are easy to get, the rush appears to be over.

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

#194

Post by dehrmann »

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.

> Do the maths on the odds.

The problem is that the people who haven't been vaccinated yet tend to be younger and less likely to die from covid. Granted, it's still much more deadly than the vaccine, but with mitigations and some degree of herd immunity, those odds aren't as compelling as for 65-year-olds.

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

#195

Post by dehrmann »

arcticbull wrote: post #176
mssundaram wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My research indicated that the median broad-scale vaccine phase III trial is about 22,000 people [1]. I've also seen the 3,000 to 6,000 person range for smaller trials [2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551877/ [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/10/what-succ...

I can't seem to find it, but I remember reading that vaccine researchers hold their breaths until 1M people have had it for 8 weeks. In normal times, the J&J vaccine would probably be taken off the market or only recommended for men.

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

#196

Post by PhantomGremlin »

hwbehrens wrote: post #120
hammock wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

there have been a few rare cases of reinfection

I don't think the word "rare" applies any longer. Reinfection is becoming more common. Here is some info CDC released a few days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/health/vaccine-nursing-ho...

An unvaccinated health care worker set off a Covid-19 outbreak at a nursing home in Kentucky where the vast majority of residents had been vaccinated, leading to dozens of infections, including 22 cases among residents and employees who were already fully vaccinated, a new study reported Wednesday.

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

#197

Post by jopsen »

mancerayder wrote: post #32

Pausing like that causes, not prevents, vaccine skepticism. In an era of declining public trust of institutions (across both political aisles, even if unequally), I argue this pause was poor politics. Science doesn't enter much into it, unfortunately.

> Pausing like that causes, not prevents, vaccine skepticism.

Citation needed.

> In an era of declining public trust of institutions...

In such an era we need institutions to display integrity above and beyond. That means not letting unfounded vaccine skepticism affect how rollout is conducted.

> I argue this pause was poor politics.

Was this a political decision?

Example: As I understood it, choosing not to go with AZ in Denmark was not a political decision.

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

#198

Post by jopsen »

mancerayder wrote: post #118
Fomite wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sho…

Yes, the media loves to report that acknowledging rare side-effects causes people to not want J&J.

The media is just drumming up controversy where there is none.

The alternatives to being open and acknowledging rare side-effects are worse.

I sure don't want to get the Russian Sputnik vaccine because I have zero trust the Russians would sweep rare side-effects under the rug.

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

#199

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

not2b wrote: post #126
ggm wrote: post #106

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.

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...

The UK figures (where AZ has been the centerpiece of their programme) suggest about 1 in 250k, which is still a really small risk.

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

#200

Post by refurb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #187
refurb wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if Canada had a pending decision on a vaccine and didn’t want to export inventory until then would anyone blame them? And decisions to invest in R&D and production facilities has consequences. Canada is finally getting on the ball to build a vaccine factory that will be ready in 2024. Maybe.

The US has no pending decision on AZ; AZ hasn’t applied for any kind of approval in the US, and officials have indicated that they hope AZ doesn't.

“The company's early April timeline has passed, but a spokesman on Wednesday said the company is still "progressing submission to the FDA."

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-still-plans-...

Likely not much demand but a positive FDA decision can boost confidence in other markets.

Post reply on HN