141–150 of 1001 posts
At least they have alternatives. Meanwhile, in Europe ...
Makes sense. Given there are some organizations that are forcing you to get a vaccination. 1 in a million chance of dying from something you were forced to do is different than 1 in a million chance of a pseudo-random event. Makes no sense to continue with J&J given the other two don't have this issue at the moment. Of course, the utilitarian approach is to simply continue vaccinating with J&J since surely more peopl…
> different than 1 in 150 chance of contracting and dying from COVID Fixed that for you.
I'm trying to understand why this isn't ridiculous, and I'm not sure what that reason could be. The disease left to its own accord has the potential to kill millions (someone please correct me on this). Why would we pause a vaccine because 6 people in 7 million got blood clots? Why would we do that and risk fueling anti-vaccine viewpoints? I'm baffled, but perhaps I'm a fool.
Yes, but the risk is death and there are alternatives that do not appear to have this risk. Why not pause until it is more well understood? In the US, the other vaccines are starting to become really readily available.
Hormonal birth control boasts clot rates of 1 per 10k, yet we hand that out like candy to little girls. Yet this is considered "too dangerous..." Edit: mods locked my account for this, lol. Some of the idiots replying are purposely conflating progestogen stats with non-progestogen stats, which is dishonest at best and willfully evil at worst. 2/3 of the market causing clots is fine? What a braindead take. I expected…
Do we? What a silly post. And if there were an alternative that was 1 in a billion I'm sure that would be paused, too.
I know personally a long hauler who has blood clotting issues and low platelets. They fall into the demographic of concern with the JJ and AZ vaccine. Anecdotally we have lost both a close relative and a young and healthy friend to Covid blood clotting related issues.
Again, I’m not weighing in on the FDA’s job. But just saying: as someone who’s anecdotally been hyper-aware of the blood related aspects of Covid, this thread has picked up my ears and I’m really interested in finding out what the linkage here is.
I think this is an example of where government transparency would greatly aid the discourse and build trust. Where is the math that suggests that pausing the J&J vaccine is prudent? Inputs being risk of getting covid, risk of getting a blood clot, risk of injury/death from covid, risk of a new covid variant appearing, etc. Without that transparency we’re all just guessing.
An analysis of the relative risks is obviously the objectively correct answer from a rational perspective, but most people aren't making decisions based on that kind of statistical reasoning (though we'd doubtless have better outcomes if they did). There's a serious risk that problems like this can spark a backlash against all COVID vaccines if not handled conservatively--there are plenty of people just waiting to ha…
You’re probably right, but if we keep trying to front-run people’s reactions to events over and over again, I’m not sure we’re going to get great results in the long run. I get the impression that anticipating how people will respond to news is engendering more extreme responses to future events.
A pause on vaccines will cause far more deaths than a 1 in 1 million chance of blood clots.
It doesn't matter that globally it could cause more deaths. It's not the job of the FDA or CDC to act as your parent and decide for you what risk is and isn't acceptable.
Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical policy.
What will happen is they will modify the consent form to let people know about the risk, and let them decide for themselves.
I'm trying to understand why this isn't ridiculous, and I'm not sure what that reason could be. The disease left to its own accord has the potential to kill millions (someone please correct me on this). Why would we pause a vaccine because 6 people in 7 million got blood clots? Why would we do that and risk fueling anti-vaccine viewpoints? I'm baffled, but perhaps I'm a fool.
I would still get this vaccine (or the AZ one) if offered because I consider it my duty to be part of the herd immunity. But not everyone will do that, and the moment you have people in privileged position refusing one of the vaccines, you start (1) exacerbating inequalities (2) fueling conspiracy theories, mistrust, and vaccine hesitancy.
If you assume that the world is perfectly rational, then you are right, but it is a running joke on HN to point out how economists used to make that same mistake and derive silly conclusions.
Makes sense. Given there are some organizations that are forcing you to get a vaccination. 1 in a million chance of dying from something you were forced to do is different than 1 in a million chance of a pseudo-random event. Makes no sense to continue with J&J given the other two don't have this issue at the moment. Of course, the utilitarian approach is to simply continue vaccinating with J&J since surely more peopl…
Why wouldn't you pause J&J? It's just a drop in the bucket in total vaccinations anyway and the other two don't have this issue.