Given COVID prevalence in my state (approx 1 out of 10,000 people test positive each day, so assume 20 out of 10,000 are infectious at the moment), and the IFR for those under 50 of about 0.01% (1 out of 10,000 coincidentally), I would have to come into close contact with 20 people over the time from when I could get the J&J shot to when I could get Pfizer or Moderna.
That's not anti-vax denialism, those are the actual numbers. A one in a million risk isn't a good deal for the individual when case rates and IFR are low.
This would be a good deal if you were in Michigan, or if you were over 65.
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 think it is a disservice to outright label people as anti-vaxers simply for questioning the risk-calculus of vaccines. The (1/7 million) is the current, unconditional and empirically observed adverse effect of the vaccine - this is a somewhat noisy measure of the true prevalence of this issue. It is okay to be cautious and there are legitimate concerns, and quite frankly, I trust the FDA have good reason to pause t…
Agreed, I've had all other vaccines, but this batch is rushed, experimental, and not necessary for me - labelling people such as myself "anti-vaxers" is just dishonest, bitter, childish, name calling. Very few people in my area of London have bothered with the so-called lockdown (too much was open to be called a lockdown), masks, etc - I expect I've had all variants, and apparently my immune system is on top of it, in which case there's nothing to pass on; and the people in my area clearly don't care if I did. I'm no more an "anti-vaxer" than I am an anti-martian.
There's the question of timing too. It's not clear if the number includes all CVST incidences or only those ocurring in a time window after vaccination. (Update: according to NYT these cases are 1-3 weeks after vaccination, so the background rate is too low to matter here). If there is a strong correlation in timing you can not simply use frequency data to rule out causation.
Of course the cases are shortly after vaccination, the data is symptoms reported shortly after vaccination which might be side effects. You're not going to have anyone who got a clot before the vaccine or long afterwards in the dataset, but those cases still did/will exist. There is no evidence yet of a correlation in timing.
The background rate you quoted are expected to be spread out independent of vaccination. If you pick a two-week window after vaccination you should only expect 1/6 of the cases that are expected in 3 month, which is the number you calculated.
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…
7 people in a fairly specific demographic (women 18-38, I believe), when there are 2 other alternative vaccinations available. Do we have any data on the total number of women 18-38 who received this vaccine? It may actually be fairly low given we may have selection bias to give these vaccines to an older population. The outcome may simply be to recommend that members in this demographic avoid this particular vaccine…
six women 18-48y
Though rates of increasing the risk of blood clots for different birth controls vary, the ones that do range from 2-6x. The FDA estimates that in US out of every 10 thousand women using combination oral contraceptives or birth control pills 3 to 9 will develop blood clots each year while for comparison the same rate for women who are not pregnant and do not take COCs is 1 to 5 which is interesting considering the age range of the six cases.
That said research is beginning to understand the mechanism of these rare blood clots in connection to adenovirus vector meds and since it is so rare it's hard to get a precise number but other studies predict an excess increase of severe blood clots in the range of 1 in every 500 thousand to million patients.
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…
You are mixing certain numbers. It absolutely makes sense for my grandfather to get any vaccine, because of his risk, but the age braket for me means that I am more at risk of dying from Astra-Zeneca than Covid, but I am also a man and those who have died so far have been women.
I haven't seen enough numbers for J and J, but you have to untangle the various risk factors before you can say anything about what you should do as an individual.
I know this pandemic is fustrating as hell, but if you call people who use science and numbers to see problems with the current vaccines anti-vaxers then you will be taken as seriously as you deserve.
I think it is a disservice to outright label people as anti-vaxers simply for questioning the risk-calculus of vaccines. The (1/7 million) is the current, unconditional and empirically observed adverse effect of the vaccine - this is a somewhat noisy measure of the true prevalence of this issue. It is okay to be cautious and there are legitimate concerns, and quite frankly, I trust the FDA have good reason to pause t…
> I think it is a disservice to outright label people as anti-vaxers simply for questioning the risk-calculus of vaccines. It's the same idea though, and should still be called out. It's people who have unqualified medical opinions, and who are then often spreading that opinion to others as if it's useful. Let the agencies figure it out, pay attention to the latest recommendations from them, and go with that. Anythin…
In 2012 if someone decided against their doctor's advice not to take an opioid which the FDA had greenlit as safe in far too many cases, would you call that "blind leading the blind"?
Iatrogenesis rivals strokes as a cause of death. Most doctors are just slavishly following official doctrines from authorities, and sometimes those authorities get it wrong. We don't even have to look to the Before Covid Times to see examples!
According to the article, 6.8 million people in the US have received the J&J shot. Without the J&J vaccine, those people (6.8 million others) would not be vaccinated due to lack of supply. The US CDC website[1] currently says the 7-day death rate per 100k people is 1.4. Without the J&J vaccine, that's almost 100 additional people dying per week - and just in the US. [1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases…
Is your logic basically that as long as the vaccine kills fewer people than COVID all is well? Pausing briefly to investigate this seems prudent. If we had the same prudence with COVID overall we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
We know with near-certainty that pausing to investigate will produce more death than not-pausing while investigating.
It's really not complicated. Count up the bodies in Column A, count up the bodies in Column B, then pick one.
> but it would be unwise to not give people an educated choice between vaccines if there are known risks They are not giving people an educated choice, they are taking that choice away until they deem it okay to give it back. Education is knowing that 7/7,000,000 had a blood clot + the other tests that were done leading up to its release. We know that now. We're educated.
Sorry you are correct - I should have been more specific in my wording. We should give people an educated choice. With unknown side effects we are not doing that. Thank you for pointing that out.
It is impossible to rule out unknown side effects. The blood clots are now known. Any side effect that is unknown will always remain unknown. You could always be the first person to experience a symptom, whether it's Tylenol or this vaccine.
The clinical trials have been for months on limited numbers of people. Given this seems to be a 1 in a million situation the odds are against those trials discovering them.
Actually they did notice extra blood clots during the trials, but didn't think it was statistically significant [0] (15 blood clots versus 10 in the placebo group, in a trial of 20k people). [0] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-...
> so it's fair to say that the risk will likely grow beyond that. not really. that's not how statistics work. it could grow, it could shrink.
I guess I wasn't being specific - good correction. Reporting medical side effects can easily lag with new treatments, especially when we're not sure what we're looking for. I suspect that, as soon as we start looking for blood clotting post-vaccine, then you'll find more cases that may have not been caught otherwise due to their not being severe enough to be noticed.
This exact thing happened with the AstraZeneca vaccine, which works very similarly to J&J. The EMA is now recognizing thrombocytopenia (not the same fatal issue but possibly related) as a "common" side effect, i.e. somewhere between 1 in 10 to 1 in 100.