7 ms·

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 h

by Eduard 6y ago

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 on them own to take these vaccinations. As someone with a not-so-uncommon mutation causing thrombosis easily, I'm happy I hesitated and haven't received either J&J or AstraZeneca.

DangerousPie 6y ago
> * Novel vaccination - barely month of research. Weeks of evidence and practice. We don't have best practices yet. That is completely untrue. This vaccine has been through several clinical trials for months. We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern. The reason we are only seeing this one now is that it is so rare.
- cheph 6y ago
  > We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern How did they establish that there are no long term side effects?
  - _Understated_ 6y ago
    You've been unfairly downvoted. Your question is perfectly reasonable. This seems to be characteristic of HN in the last couple of years... very reminiscent of Reddit imo. Long-term effects are one of the main points of study in clinical trials so why would these drugs ben any different?
  - abduhl 6y ago
    Probably the same way they established that long covid is an apparent death sentence.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    Not a doctor, but from what I've heard from immunologists, vaccines in general are incredibly unlikely to have long-term side effects on the scales that you think about. When an immunologist talks about "long-term side effects" of a vaccination, they're usually considering time ranges on the order of 6-8 weeks. Meanwhile, the 10000s of patients from the big Phase 3 trials have been vaccinated for 6-9 months, so the usual scale of long-term side effects has long been registered. That's not to say that it's completely out of the question that there will be long-long-term side effects. But if anything is going to cause long-term issues, my money is on the virus, not any vaccine.
    - Solstinox 6y ago
      The only reason we think that is because vaccines in the past have had most of their recorded side effects present in the first few weeks. Past performance...
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        ... is a pretty decent indicator in this case. Vaccines are not the stock market. No one doubts gravity because "past performance is not indicative of future results".
        Solstinox 6y ago
        I don’t think gravity and medical intervention risk and uncertainty are in the same domain. I could be wrong.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        I'm suggesting you apply the same cross-domain skepticism to your adage that comes from the financial domain.
        Solstinox 6y ago
        The situation here is closer to financial domain than the law of gravity failing.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    It hasn't been established yet.
  - pbak 6y ago
    You kind of answer your own question : only time will tell, ironically, and nobody else. Also, to all those saying "clinical trials have succeeded", I strongly suggest them to read said published trial results and look at _measured_ sample sizes used in the results, not total inoculation numbers. Applying the precautionary principle, particularly if you are not at risk, is a perfectly reasonable position, IMHO.
- octopoc 6y ago
  > We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern No, we can't know that. Some affects don't show up for a long time. One example is women. Women's bodies are complex because they go through so many changes. These changes affect how they respond to medical treatments. In other words: - Just because pre-menopause women respond well doesn't mean post-menopause women will. - Just because pre- or post-menopause women respond well doesn't mean women who are going through menopause respond well. - Just because non-pregnant women respond well to the vaccine for a month doesn't mean that pregnant women will respond well. - Just because 6-month pregnant women respond well doesn't mean 3-month pregnant women will respond well. - Any issues with the vaccine during pregnancy may not show up until after the child is born. - Women's hormones are fluctuating wildly at the beginning and after pregnancy. These are also times that need a lot of representation in the study. In fact, the amount of change women's bodies undergo affects medical treatment so much that many clinical trials deliberately under-represent women to simplify the study, and then use the results of the trial to recommend prescriptions for women.
- bluGill 6y ago
  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.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    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-clots-cdc-fda/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-...
    - bluGill 6y ago
      I stand corrected.
somedude895 6y ago
Factor V Leiden gang represent. Afaik AZ clotting is caused through a different mechanism though. Have there been any official recommendations for us thick-blooded folk?
- krooj 6y ago
  Same fam. Skipping AZ/JJ till I can get mRNA. 3 years since my last ride on the DVT rollercoaster. 0/10 - would not recommend.
1337biz 6y ago
It goes even deeper than that. I have seen that meme catch on in so many feminist Twitter and Instagram accounts that it is essential to look at the play here. The "you woudn't care about women dying" narrative completely derails the essential discussion (aka when do we determine vaccine to be save) by selectively picking facts from a completely unrelated health area to turn it into an activist subject. It reminds me on the magnet-troll-logic memes, only this one trying to come up with the completely insane narrative: "If you are concerned of a few more people dying because of a vaccine, you hate women."
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The narrative - and I think it's a correct one - is "we accept far riskier interventions in our everyday lives already, of which birth control is one good example".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jdminhbg 6y ago
> This is kneejerk statistics 101 reaction. 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.
- bosie 6y ago
  >> Hormonal birth control - years of research > This is kneejerk status quo bias. mind expanding why years of research is a 'bias'?
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    Citing "years of research" that nevertheless demonstrate a product has side effects as bad or worse as a reason something should be allowed is status quo bias.

by Eduard 6y ago

DangerousPie 6y ago

> * Novel vaccination - barely month of research. Weeks of evidence and practice. We don't have best practices yet. That is completely untrue. This vaccine has been through several clinical trials for months. We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern. The reason we are only seeing this one now is that it is so rare.

cheph 6y ago
> We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern How did they establish that there are no long term side effects?
- _Understated_ 6y ago
  You've been unfairly downvoted. Your question is perfectly reasonable. This seems to be characteristic of HN in the last couple of years... very reminiscent of Reddit imo. Long-term effects are one of the main points of study in clinical trials so why would these drugs ben any different?
- abduhl 6y ago
  Probably the same way they established that long covid is an apparent death sentence.
- majewsky 6y ago
  Not a doctor, but from what I've heard from immunologists, vaccines in general are incredibly unlikely to have long-term side effects on the scales that you think about. When an immunologist talks about "long-term side effects" of a vaccination, they're usually considering time ranges on the order of 6-8 weeks. Meanwhile, the 10000s of patients from the big Phase 3 trials have been vaccinated for 6-9 months, so the usual scale of long-term side effects has long been registered. That's not to say that it's completely out of the question that there will be long-long-term side effects. But if anything is going to cause long-term issues, my money is on the virus, not any vaccine.
  - Solstinox 6y ago
    The only reason we think that is because vaccines in the past have had most of their recorded side effects present in the first few weeks. Past performance...
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      ... is a pretty decent indicator in this case. Vaccines are not the stock market. No one doubts gravity because "past performance is not indicative of future results".
      - Solstinox 6y ago
        I don’t think gravity and medical intervention risk and uncertainty are in the same domain. I could be wrong.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        I'm suggesting you apply the same cross-domain skepticism to your adage that comes from the financial domain.
        Solstinox 6y ago
        The situation here is closer to financial domain than the law of gravity failing.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  It hasn't been established yet.
- pbak 6y ago
  You kind of answer your own question : only time will tell, ironically, and nobody else. Also, to all those saying "clinical trials have succeeded", I strongly suggest them to read said published trial results and look at _measured_ sample sizes used in the results, not total inoculation numbers. Applying the precautionary principle, particularly if you are not at risk, is a perfectly reasonable position, IMHO.
octopoc 6y ago
> We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern No, we can't know that. Some affects don't show up for a long time. One example is women. Women's bodies are complex because they go through so many changes. These changes affect how they respond to medical treatments. In other words: - Just because pre-menopause women respond well doesn't mean post-menopause women will. - Just because pre- or post-menopause women respond well doesn't mean women who are going through menopause respond well. - Just because non-pregnant women respond well to the vaccine for a month doesn't mean that pregnant women will respond well. - Just because 6-month pregnant women respond well doesn't mean 3-month pregnant women will respond well. - Any issues with the vaccine during pregnancy may not show up until after the child is born. - Women's hormones are fluctuating wildly at the beginning and after pregnancy. These are also times that need a lot of representation in the study. In fact, the amount of change women's bodies undergo affects medical treatment so much that many clinical trials deliberately under-represent women to simplify the study, and then use the results of the trial to recommend prescriptions for women.
bluGill 6y ago
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.
- mikem170 6y ago
  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-clots-cdc-fda/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-...
  - bluGill 6y ago
    I stand corrected.

somedude895 6y ago

Factor V Leiden gang represent. Afaik AZ clotting is caused through a different mechanism though. Have there been any official recommendations for us thick-blooded folk?

krooj 6y ago
Same fam. Skipping AZ/JJ till I can get mRNA. 3 years since my last ride on the DVT rollercoaster. 0/10 - would not recommend.

1337biz 6y ago

It goes even deeper than that. I have seen that meme catch on in so many feminist Twitter and Instagram accounts that it is essential to look at the play here. The "you woudn't care about women dying" narrative completely derails the essential discussion (aka when do we determine vaccine to be save) by selectively picking facts from a completely unrelated health area to turn it into an activist subject. It reminds me on the magnet-troll-logic memes, only this one trying to come up with the completely insane narrative: "If you are concerned of a few more people dying because of a vaccine, you hate women."

ceejayoz 6y ago
The narrative - and I think it's a correct one - is "we accept far riskier interventions in our everyday lives already, of which birth control is one good example".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jdminhbg 6y ago

> This is kneejerk statistics 101 reaction. 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.

bosie 6y ago
>> Hormonal birth control - years of research > This is kneejerk status quo bias. mind expanding why years of research is a 'bias'?
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  Citing "years of research" that nevertheless demonstrate a product has side effects as bad or worse as a reason something should be allowed is status quo bias.