161–170 of 1001 posts
It should be possible to have a mature, good-faith conversation about this, even on a pseudonymous web forum.
Message to anti-vaxxers: As you can see the government is very carefully tracking any kind of safety issues with vaccines. They are being open and telling you about issues despite people fearing it would cause vaccine hesitancy. So this should actually give you more confidence in vaccine safety, because if there are problem, you will be informed.
I'm not sure how to get through that... from what I understand it takes alot of effort and time per person.
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…
> “This announcement will not have a significant impact on our vaccination plan: Johnson & Johnson vaccine makes up less than 5 percent of the recorded shots in arms in the United States to date,” White House Covid-19 response coordinator Jeff Zients said in a statement. At least they have alternatives. Meanwhile, in Europe ...
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.
According to that graphic, if you are in a time of medium COVID infection rates (60 per 100k per day), the risk from COVID outweighs the vaccine risks in that age group. If you in a time of low rates (20 per 100k per day) the vaccine risks outweigh the COVID risks.
The vaccine risk goes down as patient age goes up, and the COVID risk goes up as age goes up.
The J&J risks will probably follow a similar pattern and it also appears that the J&J clots require unusual treatment. That suggests a pause to at least figure out where the risk curves cross and to make sure that doctors and hospitals are prepared to recognize and treat the J&J clots.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/us-cdc-fda-call-for-...
Message to anti-vaxxers: As you can see the government is very carefully tracking any kind of safety issues with vaccines. They are being open and telling you about issues despite people fearing it would cause vaccine hesitancy. So this should actually give you more confidence in vaccine safety, because if there are problem, you will be informed.
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…
No, it's not "too dangerous", rather it's "we did not warn people about the known risks". If you warn people about the small risk of blood clots from the vaccine, then you can let them decide if to receive it. That's what informed consent is all about.
I love how people are complaining about this decision without addressing the fact that there are two other vaccines that don't have this issue that have been used orders of magnitude more. 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.
J&J was the best option for those who didn't want to dabble in experimental vaccine tech. Now there is no choice.
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…
No, it's not "too dangerous", rather it's "we did not warn people about the known risks". If you warn people about the small risk of blood clots from the vaccine, then you can let them decide if to receive it. That's what informed consent is all about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, it’s closer to 4 in 200 [1] Second, there’s evidence that even if people don’t die, there can be long term neurological effects [2]. Third, even if we accept your number, 1 in 200 would still be 1.5 million Americans dead, not even considering the rest of the world. I am personally not comfortable doing nothing to stop that number. I agree that being super worried about a 1 in a million blood clot might be sho…
It's absolutely disingenuous to use CFR to drive home a point about absolute deaths rates in a population. People with asymptomatic infections (which are the majority of them) do not have any reason to get tested, so they do not count as "cases".
As I said, that still implies that if everyone in the United States got it, 1.5 million of them would die (320,000,000 * .005). That's a lot of people.
If a government did nothing to prevent a terrorist attack that killed 1.5 million people, most people would (rightly) be pretty upset.
EDIT: Also, forgot to mention, it's totally disingenuous to only look at "deaths". We do not fully know the long term health effects, but as I stated there's potential neurological effects, potential risks of type 1 diabetes, and people permanently losing smell.