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

171–180 of 232 posts

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

#171

Post by notsrg »

refurb wrote: post #168
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.

10M doses or enough to vaccinate 2.8% of the US population doesn’t seem like a lot to be sitting on?

That's 25% of the population of Canada.

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

#172

Post by linuxftw »

pdog wrote: post #152
adrianmonk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protec…

If most of a population is already infected and has natural immunity, those people would certainly make the efficacy of the product seem much higher.

At some point, they'll declare the campaign a success. We'll never get to see the real data because they aren't collecting it. There's no centralized reporting or control.

In the US, there has been 32M cases reported so far, and who knows how many asymptomatic cases that were never counted. Since a large portion of cases are asymptomatic, the total case count could be multiples of the confirmed case count.

The clinical trials will never be replicated, it will just be 'oops, pandemic over, we assumed it all worked.'

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

#173

Post by arcticbull »

unanswered wrote: post #166
gojomo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, a lot of that supposed AZ stockpile traces back to the troubled Emergent Biosolutions facility. I don't think it had FDA certification when it produced them. Exactly zero of the J&J doses from that facility have been given to Americans. 15M J&J doses were discarded because they were contaminated with AZ ingredients. Tens of millions more are currently in quarantine awaiting other evaluations & may never be used…

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.

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

#174

Post by caddemon »

jonplackett wrote: post #137
wang_li wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For there J+J vaccine, it's also a 1 in a million risk, but just of getting the clots, not dying. Your denominator could be wrong when you factor in the attributes of the individual considering the shot. Are the blood clots appearing entirely randomly or are they happening more frequently in an identifiable sub-group of vaccine recipients? In the case of the J+J vaccine all the blood clots happened in women 18-48 y…

It's a good point - I don't know enough about the J+J one to comment on that, this was based on the AZ vaccine. Do you know if anyone has died from the J+J one? Because that's what I am comparing with for the AZ one, so it's actually in that sense less risky that AZ anyway.

The link above states 3 women so far have died from J&J and 7 more remain hospitalized. If you do demographic-specific division and compare that to the likelihood that same demographic would die from COVID, it seems unclear to me that young women would come out better getting the J&J vaccine. Both things are very unlikely to happen, but ultimately it's easy to get a Pfizer or Moderna appointment these days (at least in my area) so I don't see the point in trying to pressure people into getting J&J if they're concerned about that specific vaccine. Pfizer/Moderna are probably more effective anyway.

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

#175

Post by rel2thr »

grandmczeb wrote: post #156
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

> 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/vaccin…

I don't know if we have capacity, thats a good call out.

I just feel like more data is better, the scientist don't seem to understand the mechanism that causes this problem and why it affects a few people but not most.

Your link links the problem to low platelet count, is the vaccine affecting platelets in other people but not enough to manifest the issue? Maybe more data could help figure out why it happened to those handful of people and not others.

The J&J vaccine causes headaches and pains normally , I was down and out for a couple days, I could easily see someone with the issue thinking its normal and waiting too long to go in for help.

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

#176

Post by arcticbull »

mssundaram wrote: post #127
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.

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...

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

#177

Post by mlyle »

mikem170 wrote: post #153
m-p-3 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bloo…

> You may be comparing fatal-only vaccine blood clots to non-fatal contraception blood clots

At the time vaccination was paused, here were 6 known cases of CVST, 2 fatal, in 6.8 million vaccinated.

To come up with 1 in 250,000 like the OP, you need to consider only women (~3.5 million doses), count all cases (not just the fatalities), and assume more than half of the cases were not reported.

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

#178

Post by bsder »

hammock wrote: post #99
_wldu wrote: post #77

I had Covid in March 2020. It almost did me in. Was in ICU for a while. Had the J&J shot three weeks ago. Did not feel a thing. My arm was slightly sore at injection site. Nothing else. I guess my body was used to it and just sort of shrugged it off. Some of my friends who got J&J were sick for a few days, but rebounded quickly after that.

What prompted you to get a vaccine when you have already developed immunity?

For me, the answer is: the human immune system is weird and error prone.

Perhaps you got better because your innate immune system cleared Covid--you may not have antibodies. Perhaps your immune system keyed off something screwball on the virus--you may have antibodies that are less effective for other variants. I can go on.

Getting the vaccine means that I know I have antibodies to the spike protein in particular--which seems to be common to all the variants.

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

#179

Post by linuxftw »

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.

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

#180

Post by caddemon »

jonplackett wrote: post #135
jrochkind1 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most important comparison is the risk of getting severe covid and/or dying from it if unvaccinated . It's tricky cause it depends on what you do (you get to do more once you are vaccinated), as well as the ever-changing rate of infection in the community where you are (which will change as more people get vaccinated among other things). But in general, your risk of having severe complications from covid if unvacc…

I agree that's an important part - BUT there's more to this all than the risk to ourselves as individuals. For older people, getting the vaccine is a no brainer. The risk of covid is high, they can't see their grand kids etc, so they're lining up to get vaccinated. For young people, the risk from Covid is low, but we need everyone to get vaccinated anyway because that's the only way to stop it spreading, infecting mo…

We have 2 other vaccines that do not present this risk. It seems pretty likely the issue affects mostly younger women, so I don't see the problem with encouraging that demographic to get a different vaccine if they have reservations about J&J. To me that seems like the more practical approach as far as safety of all involved AND actually convincing people on the fence to get vaccinated. Let's stop with the "all vaccines are the same" bullshit.
Post reply on HN