211–220 of 1001 posts
Is it surprising that the vaccines cause clotting too? Isn't this sort of obvious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paraphrasing one famous science commenter, we're playing Pandemic Trolley Problem and running over hundreds of people because we're not sure if the other path has one or two persons. It's ridiculous. Or as per someone that actually knows statistics: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1381925025964515330
Only if you assume that utilitarianism is the answer to the Trolley Problem
This is what vaccine delays cost us
I'm a 40 year old man, if I were a woman I wouldn't take J&J or AstraZeneca, but as I'm a man, I think it's worth to take the risk of the side effects of the vaccination.
Six cases in seven million administered doses. One death. Meanwhile, hormonal birth control causes clots in 1/1,000 women. No one blinks an eye. The vaccine hesitancy this engenders is likely gonna kill more than that one person. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1381936112311148548 > Public health bureaucrats have some weird habits in how they reason under uncertainty and how they communicate to the public. I…
Why do people keep posting this nonsense? Who cares how many clots birth controls produce? What matters is the outcome compared to the thing birth controls prevent - pregnancy. Do you get more blood clots from being pregnant or from being on the pill? It's order of magnitudes more from being pregnant, therefore if you're sexually active it's safer to be on the pill compared to not. How is this the top post? People ha…
Also, how does Bayes' Theorem apply to your comment?
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.
COVID risk goes up with age. In the other COVID vaccine with a clotting issue (the AZ vaccine) clotting risk goes down with age. If that turns out to also be the case with J&J, then for a lot of people in the US (up to 20% or so) at the current levels of COVID the vaccine has a good chance of being more of a danger to them than COVID.
A short pause to determine if they should add a minimum age (possibly a variable minimum age that depends on the overall COVID rates) for J&J is prudent.
Six cases in seven million administered doses. One death. Meanwhile, hormonal birth control causes clots in 1/1,000 women. No one blinks an eye. The vaccine hesitancy this engenders is likely gonna kill more than that one person. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1381936112311148548 > Public health bureaucrats have some weird habits in how they reason under uncertainty and how they communicate to the public. I…
This is kneejerk statistics 101 reaction. * Hormonal birth control - years of research. Years of evidence and practice. Knowing what to do when this and that happens. Recommendations for women with known conditions not to take this and that hormonal birth control. * Novel vaccination - barely month of research. Weeks of evidence and practice. We don't have best practices yet. I'm fine with anyone to make a decision o…
Sometimes the answer is easy.
> Hormonal birth control - years of research
This is kneejerk status quo bias.
> I'm fine with anyone to make a decision on them own to take these vaccinations.
Great, but the FDA is not. That's the issue here.
Six cases in seven million administered doses. One death. Meanwhile, hormonal birth control causes clots in 1/1,000 women. No one blinks an eye. The vaccine hesitancy this engenders is likely gonna kill more than that one person. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1381936112311148548 > Public health bureaucrats have some weird habits in how they reason under uncertainty and how they communicate to the public. I…
Why do people keep posting this nonsense? Who cares how many clots birth controls produce? What matters is the outcome compared to the thing birth controls prevent - pregnancy. Do you get more blood clots from being pregnant or from being on the pill? It's order of magnitudes more from being pregnant, therefore if you're sexually active it's safer to be on the pill compared to not. How is this the top post? People ha…
Same with the vaccine.
> Do you get more blood clots from being pregnant or from being on the pill?
Again, same with the vaccine. COVID itself causes clots, in a very substantial percentage of hospitalized patients.
"The benefits of this medical intervention are worthwhile, despite the risks, given the alternative" is precisely the point being made.
We allow people to receive no vaccination at all. But we won't allow them to get this vaccine if they want it? This reminds me about all those governments that allow people to buy and sell cigarettes, but ban the sale of raw milk. Can we just name this "Raw Milk Syndrome"?
Cigarettes and raw milk are, regrettably, a specious comparison. In the USA, the rules concerning both are handled by different governing bodies. For the longest time, cigarettes had been explicitly excluded from the FDA's jurisdiction, according to a law passed by Congress, and confirmed by a Supreme Court decision. And rules concerning raw milk vary from state to state, but are generally also set by legislatures. In both cases, what you see there is political interests come into conflict with, and perhaps override, the more level-headed, science-driven, technocratic approach that the FDA is theoretically expected to take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people keep posting this nonsense? Who cares how many clots birth controls produce? What matters is the outcome compared to the thing birth controls prevent - pregnancy. Do you get more blood clots from being pregnant or from being on the pill? It's order of magnitudes more from being pregnant, therefore if you're sexually active it's safer to be on the pill compared to not. How is this the top post? People ha…
I don't see your point. The J&J vaccine also presumably prevents much more blood clot-related harm than it's causing. OP is pointing out that we seem to have weirdly high standards for COVID vaccines vs. stuff we're used to. Also, how does Bayes' Theorem apply to your comment?
J&J is paused because there are alternatives that don't have clotting to the same degree.
A comparison with birth control makes no sense. Is there some magical birth control that's used orders of magnitude more (Pfizer) and orders of magnitude safer with respect to blood clotting and also prevents pregnancy?
No? Then the comparison is stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose they don't know what is the cause and what's gonna happen in the future(6 now, 10 000 in a few years). The communication that public gets is outrageously bad.
Isn't that as true, if not greater, for the mRNA based vaccines, despite them not having that observed side effect? For all we know, everyone's butts might fall off because of them in the future. (yes, I'm being somewhat facetious)
(I'd be good if someone with more knowledge could comment)