Live data from Hacker News

US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

bbc.co.uk

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#891
post #746
post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not full story. 65% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 but 100% efficacy against death and hospitalization due to COVID-19. So there is real benefit to it.

Yes, but 65% efficacy still means that 1/3 of the vaccinated people will continue to be spreaders, which doesn't sound great, especially if that allows the virus to spread and evolve into a harsher variety.

Lol if the people that don't get it and it's more or less a cold it's not a big deal. If you go to the hospital your chances of dying from it go up astronomically. How can you miss that most basic of points?

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#892
post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 this if Moderna/Pfizer are readily available anywy. How many injections do you personally need to feel comfortable? Seve…

> How many injections do you personally need to feel comfortable? Seven million people is way more than any clinical trial for any drug you've ever taken, and I guarantee you any of them is more likely to kill you.

Again, the point is, when we observe adverse effect in the out-of-trial phase, it has hard to pin-point cause and effect. It is not a guarantee that the 7 million necessarily represent a random sample so proceeding with caution is warranted. We know, for example, vaccines have been distributed by age, and chances are, the 7 million is bias towards the older demographic.

> Every single year 150 people die from taking Tylenol in the US in the normal course of treatment -- and 500 die of acute liver failure due to acetaminophen overdose. 25,000 hospital admissions. 50,000 ER visits. If we pretend that 350,000,000 people take Tylenol each year, that makes Tylenol 50% more likely to kill you than this vaccine.

Again, the point isn't that {insert_your_favourite_drug} is 10x more likely to kill you - the point is, when we do not understand why something is happening, it is better to pause and detect whether there is a more fundamental issue. For example, suppose that every single injection that caused an adverse reaction was produced at the same facility and as part of the same batch - we would definitely be better off in investigating the root cause than to leave it be. Until we fully understand what mechanism is causing this adverse effect and how to best counteract it, in my opinion, a pause is warranted.

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#893
post #499

"The incidence of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) varies between studies, but it is estimated to be between 2 and 5 per million per year. A recent study in the Netherlands with comprehensive ascertainment suggested a much higher incidence." https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.0... So the six reported cases in 6.8 million vaccinations seems low. Glad I read about all this because I got the J&J…

"So the six reported cases in 6.8 million vaccinations seems low." No, because those 6 cases are something more like "1 per day" rather than "per year". Or maybe "per week". But either way, you need to multiply the "per year" base rate by a large number to get the base rate for "coincidentally happened immediately after a particular event", for some definition of "immediately".

Using 1 per year is useless unless it's adjusted to a ratiometric form like percentage or per capita

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#894

John Campbell suggested on his video the other day that perhaps this is happening because some injectors are not aspirating. What that means is that when an intramuscular injection is given you want to ensure that it goes into the muscle and not into a vein. So the proper way to do this is for the person doing the injection to first pull out the syringe (after it's been stuck into the arm) a bit to make sure there's…

If this were the case it would be odd that this is happening a.) in a consistent subset of women 18-38 b.) that it would emerge in a 1-shot regimen rather than a 2-shot regimen, because it would seem more likely that any one individual would experience this more frequently with 2 chances for human error rather than 1

with only 6 people you can't really say that since it's such a tiny sample size. If it's 6 women then you're starting to get to a pattern worth testing.

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#895
post #702

The risk of dying from a blood clot after receiving the J&J vaccine is six in 6,800,000 (6.8M). The world population is 7,900,000,000 (7.9B). If everyone on the planet got the J&J vaccine tomorrow, and if it is the cause of the clots, then 6,971 people would die from the vaccine. Yesterday, Covid19 killed 8,803 people (according to worldometers). We don't want anyone to die from vaccination, and we don't fully unders…

Per Wikipedia: there are 7.3 deaths per 1 billion km driven in the USA. About 7 million J&J doses have been delivered. One person has died as a result of blood clots thought to be related to the vaccine.

If we assume an average of 32km round trip to get to a vaccination site (~10 miles each way). Statistically speaking at least one person has died driving in their car to get the vaccine. The same number as from the vaccine.

I couldn't find good stats on serious injuries per km driven, but I suspect it's an order of magnitude higher than deaths per km. Your risk of dying on your way to get the vaccine is the same as your risk of dying from the vaccine. You are, almost certainly, far more likely to be seriously injured on your way to get the vaccine than you are from the vaccine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#896
post #702

The risk of dying from a blood clot after receiving the J&J vaccine is six in 6,800,000 (6.8M). The world population is 7,900,000,000 (7.9B). If everyone on the planet got the J&J vaccine tomorrow, and if it is the cause of the clots, then 6,971 people would die from the vaccine. Yesterday, Covid19 killed 8,803 people (according to worldometers). We don't want anyone to die from vaccination, and we don't fully unders…

6 obvious deaths that we're aware of. The risk of the vaccines is in their novelty and morbidity. An abundance of caution is required in this instance. It would be very bad to discover that there's a vanishingly small chance of blood clots within the first 3 months but a significant chance when paired with other events over the following decade.

6 deaths? I thought it was 1 death and 5 serious injuries?

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey thanks for this. I have the sources next to each. Just click the link in the bottom left corner. Let me know if you don't think they're accurate after having a look. I took the driving risk as being 250 miles of driving with an average 50mph speed (The risk of dying must be higher at high speed so wanted to take a high average to be fair).

The source on the "10x less risky than going down a flight of stairs" is https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2... . That shows that in the UK in 2010, 655 people died from falling down stairs. That translates to a 1 in 100,000 annualized risk from falling down stairs -- the relevant comparison is "10x less risky than using stairs a typical amount for an entire year". Interestingly, running the…

Thanks. I'm going to take that one out. Makes it simpler not to do annual risk. Risk difference UK/US is odd! We thought you guys had it bad with gun crime, and didn't think about the stairs....

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is true, but I find it funny and frustrating that people are so ready to selectively treat rare odds as catastrophic in other circumstances that suit their worldview. For example, urbanists are ready to accept the premise of Vision Zero, which aims to push road fatalities down to zero. Today, there is approximately 1 traffic fatality per 100 million miles traveled in the US. It's so rare that it doesn't deserve…

I don't get your logic? I would have thought people supporting project zero - essentially believing there should be zero risk to any individual at society's expense (having to drive slow) would want the vaccine paused for the same reason. To save individuals from getting a blood clot at the expense of society not being able to reopen.

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#899
post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Now, your risk of dying either from vaccination or Covid19 depends on various demographic factors not accounted for in my math above. But, nonetheless, the risk of dying from the J&J vaccine is really, really, really tiny." Unless this is a repeat of AstraZeneca, where many were lamenting the interruption of vaccination and calculating the risk for the entire population of people injected with AZ. Meanwhile, in some…

> the risk of dying from the vaccine for young women was higher than the risk of dying from the virus Do you have a good source you'd recommend for this? I couldn't find this bit of info from the first few articles I skimmed. > After the concerns about AZ turned out to be justified and AZ being banned for certain age groups you'd think that people would get a clue about unconditional vaccine cheerleading. Who is unco…

In australia for example, where there is currently zero community transmission, and AZ was the preferred rollout for most of the population, assuming only women are vulnerable (not true) about 8m women below 50 (the age for which the government instituted the cutoff for alternatives) so at 1:500,000 risk of some injury (edit - originally said death) that’s 16 people who, ceteris paribus, wouldn’t be at any risk

Re: US agencies call for pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine

#900
post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the problem though is that we have a Tragedy of the Commons situation on our hands. There is a non-negligible portion of the population that wants to have its cake and eat it too – reduce the risk that they will suffer health consequences from COVID-19 by letting everyone else get the vaccine, but not getting the vax themselves, therefore putting their risk from vax at zero.

(A) vaccination means less social distancing sooner. Lots of people are interested that. (B) covid-19 might very well become endemic. Like how the common cold is always around. It's not so bad if we're vaccinated. But for those that don't get vaccinated hurd immunity might not cover them. In practice: I think we just need to be honest about the risk of vaccines. And say that taking it is the patriotic thing to do :)

> vaccination means less social distancing sooner.

i guess you can put it like that.

from my understanding the vaccines do reduce the transmissibility of the virus, but they do not lower it to zero [0]. you can still get the virus, but with the vaccine your chances of needing hospitalisation drop to zero [1].

i guess this is why you still need to wear a mask, and still need to socially distance even if you are vaccinated [2].

[0] https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2021/covid-19-vaccin...

[1] https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021...!

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

Post reply on HN