571–580 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I have my numbers approximately right, getting the J&J vaccine is a bit safer than taking a plane trip, while getting COVID is about as safe as taking a trip in the space shuttle.
Your chance of dying from COVID is heavily dependent on your age and any preexisting conditions, so any comparison that uses a single probability for everyone is totally wrong for a very large number of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a vaccine for a disease that has killed over half a million people in the US over the past year, not a new breast implant. The rules are not some holy writ handed down from above, they are our way of trying to properly manage risk. When the situation changes, the rules can also change.
> This is a vaccine for a disease that has killed over half a million people in the US over the past year Serious question, how many of those people would have died in the past 12 months if they didn't get COVID? The number is most likely not 500,000, but it also probably isn't 0. Is it most likely something insignificant like 5,000?
In 2020, approximately 3,358,814 deaths occurred in the United States (Table). The age-adjusted rate was 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population, an increase of 15.9% from 715.2 in 2019.
Assuming the rates stayed the same or roughly so from year to year, it appears that not many of them would have died sans COVID19. Certainly well over 5000. If there is a trend, none of the data I looked at on the CDC site supported this, raw deaths have been rising in the last 5 years but death's per 100,000 have held. So if it's a small increase per 100,000 is "normal" given those trends 16% is still well outside the normal, so it's likely something like 300,000 or there about. I sure someone here could do the math to verify that but I don't feel like it. :)
ref: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db395.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't want to put this into the parent comment because I didn't want to get just shoved into the "vax" vs. "anti-vax" bucket by the replies. But there's a very well known case where DNA delivered via an adenovirus killed a teenager during a genetic engineering study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC81135/ >> "No one realized that the vector itself might pose a risk" I'm sure the dosage, type of adenov…
Don't look at things like that. Shut down your brain and take your pilllls.
>> An autopsy and subsequent studies indicated that his death was caused by a fulminant immune reaction (with high serum levels of the cytokines interleukin-6 and interleukin-10) to the adenoviral vector.
>> The data suggested that the high dose of Ad [adenoviral] vector, delivered by infusion directly to the liver, quickly saturated available receptors ... within that organ and then spilled into the circulatory and other organ systems including the bone marrow, thus inducing the systemic immune response.
He was injected with >3 × 10^13 viruses [2]. The typical J&J dose contain: low-dose (5x10^10 viral particles) or high-dose (1x10^11 viral particles) [3].
[1] https://www.uab.edu/ccts/images/steinbrook_Gelsinger_-_Oxfor...
[2] https://www.cell.com/molecular-therapy-family/molecular-ther...
[3] https://www.jwatch.org/na53085/2021/01/26/adenovirus-vectore...
> The US has by far the most confirmed cases of Covid-19 - more than 31 million - with more than 562,000 deaths, another world high. The BBC is usually pretty good about sticking to relevant information (at least compared to US media), so I was a bit disappointed to see this blurb - especially since it's only the fourth sentence in the article. What does it add? It has nothing to do with the subject (ie the safety of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. And that is why when something like this pops up we stop giving out the treatment while we look at the new data and make the decision.
So we stop giving out treatment and an extra 1000-10000(?) people die and we delay the economy getting back on track for a week or two with the delay. No skin off the FDA bureaucrats teeth, but they are hurting a lot of people with this decision.
> FDA bureaucrats
You mean doctors. These decisions are done by doctors as they should be. The current (acting) head of FDA is a physician too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a virus that has 98% survival rate You know, for all the continual fear mongering about coronavirus last year, the constant reminders of who was most at risk, the hyper importance put on masks and cleanliness, etc it is shocking to see things put this way now.
That's because long term consequences of COVID are real, and worrying just about the worst case (the death rate) is like saying that data leaks are no big deal because only 2% of them lead to the loss of their customer's life savings.
7 people out of 7 million dose's. That's why they stopped. My wife and I got the J&J shot on Saturday so I'm directly at risk and I'd take it everytime even if the risk was 10 times what it currently is. I've already seen a bunch of anit-vaxers referring to this in new articles this morning. So let's see, 1 in a million chance that the vaccine will make you sick (only 1 person has died so far, which is terrible but i…
I just made this website to show you how really, really small the risks are for the AstraZeneca vaccine which also has this ‘issue’. It compares the risks of dying from a blood clot after the AZ vaccine (about 1 in a million) to the risks we happily take every single day. http://whatoneinamillionmeans.com If you're not willing to take 1 in a million chances, it's gonna be pretty hard for you to get out of bed today
People's brains don't work that way. It requires a lot of education on probability, and even then the math often conflicts with our instincts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over the past 2 weeks, the reported rate of these events associated with the AZ vaccine has gone from 1 in a million, to 1 in 30,000 [0]. [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882
The source you mention does not explicitly give a one in 30.000 figure, and it is not something that can be safely concluded from the data in the paper. The authors state that at the time 132,686 people had received their first AZ shot in Norway, of which five had developed thrombosis. This is definitely not enough data to conclude a 1 in 30,000 figure. And neither does the cited paper conclude this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd replace an entire team due to one decision you didn't like?
Half a million Americans are dead. This is wartime. We don't have time to coddle bureaucrats who make awful decisions.
Wrong. In a war you win by outsmarting other people. Maybe that's through democracy, maybe it's by moving faster, maybe it's by having better technology, maybe it's by having more technology.
This is a pandemic. A health crisis caused by a virus. In this situation you win by carefully understanding the nature of the virus and then determining what needs to happen in order to shut it down. Making rash decisions because it's "wartime" doesn't actually stop the virus. We can't blitz a virus. We have to take time to understand the consequences of our actions.
> coddle
Actually, we do have to coddle. If we squash people's concerns about the vaccine, then they just won't get it because they don't feel listened to. On the other hand, if we show people that we're taking their concerns seriously, they're more likely to go and take one of the other vaccines. Because the "unsafe" ones were pulled after all, so the ones left over have to be safe (not true, but it's going to work for a non-trivial number of people).