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

211–220 of 232 posts

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

#211

Post by lokedhs »

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…

In Singapore they had massive outbreaks in foreign workers dormitories one year ago. Now they have apparently seen new cases among the previously infected, suggesting that immunity starts to wear off after about a year. I'd definitely get vaccinated even if you already had it.

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

#212

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

InitialLastName wrote: post #86
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…

It's worth noting that young-to-middle-aged women are also over=represented (relative to the general public) among healthcare workers, who have been a primary target for the early rounds of vaccination.

At least where I live, none of the healthcare workers got the J&J vaccine. As you point out, they were all at the front of the line for vaccines, so they got Pfizer or Moderna before J&J was even available.

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

#213

Post by jollybean »

linuxftw wrote: post #179
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…

The FDA is phrasing it as 'blood clots' and what they should be calling it is 'death.' How many deaths are associated with each vaccine at this point? Show me the data.

Only a minority of the clots caused death, and as there is treatment for them and we know what to look for, it should be considerably less risky.

'The data' is available for you out there on Google. The calculus the public health officials are making I think is reasonable.

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

#214

Post by willmadden »

arcticbull wrote: post #173
unanswered wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the consensus among the general public is all those doses you mentioned should be given anyways because the vaccine is 100% safe.

The vaccine when properly produced is incredibly safe - much safer than catching COVID, which is of course the cost of inaction.

Your statement is unverifiable. We need to focus on better testing. The case and death data itself is garbage because of the use of PCR tests with a too high cycle count. Also, the risk of antibody dependent enhancement is a potential disaster.

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

#215

Post by culopatin »

ipaddr wrote: post #161
ggm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Africa or India or south America need them more than G8 economies

India produces their own version locally. South Africa has unapproved J&J and AstrV. Central America could use some. Brazil doesn't have a lacking issue, the big issue is they can't get people to take the second dose.

Argentina could use someone saving them from their Governments stupidity

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

#216

Post by quickthrowman »

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

Who is going to pay for the blood panel?

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

#217

Post by void_mint »

halfjoking wrote: post #190
void_mint wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal take was just to avoid J&J in favor of mRNA vaccines, but only because of my vague obsessive anxiety.

I have the opposite take. It seems it would be harder for the government to insert a "biological backdoor" into a viral vector vaccine than something that runs any RNA code as long as it's encoded in a special lipid delivery system (according to my limited understanding). 1 in 250k chance of blood clots is nothing... at least compared to the anxiety of the government having a switch in my biology that could melt my b…

That's one take. Mine was more about efficacy. J&J IIRC was around 60%, while mRNA vaccines are around 90%. Big brain vaccine scientists tell me that 60% is fine but all I see is 30% less efficacy. I wouldn't be able to feel confident/safe even after getting J&J.

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

#218

Post by unanswered »

arcticbull wrote: post #173
unanswered wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the consensus among the general public is all those doses you mentioned should be given anyways because the vaccine is 100% safe.

The vaccine when properly produced is incredibly safe - much safer than catching COVID, which is of course the cost of inaction.

I think that's what I just said...

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

#219

Post by skue »

sgc wrote: post #129
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.

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…

I’m not sure whether you’re arguing that this wouldn’t be noticed or if we cannot measure it statistically.

For the former, the side effect is blot clots with thrombocytopenia. That combo is very rare, is indicative of an autoimmune etiology, and would stand out to healthcare providers and be reported. Even if there were a few cases that were not identified or reported, it would not lead to a 2x order of magnitude difference in the reported incidence as you suggest.

If your argument is a statistical one about the study being underpowered, then show your math. Because this is definitely not a small n.

Otherwise, be careful about presuming that something in a domain unfamiliar to you is equally unclear to experts in that domain.

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

#220

Post by hammock »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #196
hwbehrens wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

That's not reinfection (later infection of recovered covid patients). That's infection among vaccinated people.
Post reply on HN