4 ms·

1) We do not know how many cases we've missed. Vaccine side effect reporting is not mandatory in the US, and very different rates of side effects have been repo

1) We do not know how many cases we've missed. Vaccine side effect reporting is not mandatory in the US, and very different rates of side effects have been reported in different countries. Differences in reporting culture is one likely cause. It's also very telling that less than the expected rate of thrombosis was reported at first: that's clear evidence of under-reporting! 2) It's not correct to say the denominator is 7 million. So far the cases seem to be concentrated in specific demographics, and it's not clear yet if that is a matter of who has received the vaccine, or if some demographics are more vulnerable than others.

jjk166 6y ago
> It's also very telling that less than the expected rate of thrombosis was reported at first: that's clear evidence of under-reporting! The rate is 3-4 per million adults over the course of a year. The J&J vaccine has only been administered over about 3 months, so we'd expect only about 1 per million for this sampling period. It is true we can't be certain whether we've missed cases, but there's no evidence to suggest we have. This is a rare disease and this is a time period where everyone is hyperalert for potential vaccine side effects. > It's not correct to say the denominator is 7 million. So far the cases seem to be concentrated in specific demographics, and it's not clear yet if that is a matter of who has received the vaccine, or if some demographics are more vulnerable than others. The rate given is for all adults. The J&J vaccine is only approved for use in adults. All reported cases are in exactly the group most commonly affected. While again we can't say with certainty that there isn't a demographic effect, there is no evidence thus far to support that hypothesis. I'm not saying that there is no reason to investigate further, but there is absolutely no evidence that people receiving this vaccine are experiencing symptoms at a higher rate than we'd otherwise expect. If there is an effect, all evidence at this time suggests it is very small. A small increase in risk of getting a rare condition, when compared to the far more likely possibility of contracting a disease that has killed hundreds of thousands in the US alone, is not something to be alarmed by.
- Throwawayaerlei 6y ago
  The [normal?] rate is 3-4 per million adults over the course of a year. The J&J vaccine has only been administered over about 3 months, so we'd expect only about 1 per million for this sampling period. This syndrome has taken only 1 to 3 weeks, I read 2-12 days elsewhere, to show up in people who've received Janssen's vaccine. Six total out of 6.9 million doses administered; I have no time to do the math right now but I think it might be worse than you think, plus we have to consider this very same thing showing up in the other vaccine of roughly the same type that's been widely prescribed in open societies, AZ/Oxford's.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    > This syndrome has taken only 1 to 3 weeks, I read 2-12 days elsewhere, to show up in people who've received Janssen's vaccine. You are falsely assuming that they had zero risk prior to getting the vaccine and then the vaccine set off some clock of development time. In reality, there is a constant risk. Any cases from prior to the vaccine being administered would not be counted, and only so much time has passed since the vaccine was administered. What you are really measuring here is what are the odds that someone who has received the J&J vaccine did so in the past 1-3 weeks, which is in fact extremely high with nearly half administered in the past week alone. Further, the longer the delay between the vaccine being administered and the development of a clot, the less likely it is to be reported in connection with the vaccine. We should thus expect nearly all cases of background CVST to come from people who have recently received the vaccine. > plus we have to consider this very same thing showing up in the other vaccine of roughly the same type that's been widely prescribed in open societies, AZ/Oxford's. The AZ/oxford vaccine produces a different kind of clot, and its incidence rate is likewise not significantly above background levels. The fact AZ is being investigated with regards to blood clots is only more reason to be confident that blood clots in people who have recieved the vaccine are being accurately reported.

jjk166 6y ago

> It's also very telling that less than the expected rate of thrombosis was reported at first: that's clear evidence of under-reporting! The rate is 3-4 per million adults over the course of a year. The J&J vaccine has only been administered over about 3 months, so we'd expect only about 1 per million for this sampling period. It is true we can't be certain whether we've missed cases, but there's no evidence to suggest we have. This is a rare disease and this is a time period where everyone is hyperalert for potential vaccine side effects. > It's not correct to say the denominator is 7 million. So far the cases seem to be concentrated in specific demographics, and it's not clear yet if that is a matter of who has received the vaccine, or if some demographics are more vulnerable than others. The rate given is for all adults. The J&J vaccine is only approved for use in adults. All reported cases are in exactly the group most commonly affected. While again we can't say with certainty that there isn't a demographic effect, there is no evidence thus far to support that hypothesis. I'm not saying that there is no reason to investigate further, but there is absolutely no evidence that people receiving this vaccine are experiencing symptoms at a higher rate than we'd otherwise expect. If there is an effect, all evidence at this time suggests it is very small. A small increase in risk of getting a rare condition, when compared to the far more likely possibility of contracting a disease that has killed hundreds of thousands in the US alone, is not something to be alarmed by.

Throwawayaerlei 6y ago
The [normal?] rate is 3-4 per million adults over the course of a year. The J&J vaccine has only been administered over about 3 months, so we'd expect only about 1 per million for this sampling period. This syndrome has taken only 1 to 3 weeks, I read 2-12 days elsewhere, to show up in people who've received Janssen's vaccine. Six total out of 6.9 million doses administered; I have no time to do the math right now but I think it might be worse than you think, plus we have to consider this very same thing showing up in the other vaccine of roughly the same type that's been widely prescribed in open societies, AZ/Oxford's.
- jjk166 6y ago
  > This syndrome has taken only 1 to 3 weeks, I read 2-12 days elsewhere, to show up in people who've received Janssen's vaccine. You are falsely assuming that they had zero risk prior to getting the vaccine and then the vaccine set off some clock of development time. In reality, there is a constant risk. Any cases from prior to the vaccine being administered would not be counted, and only so much time has passed since the vaccine was administered. What you are really measuring here is what are the odds that someone who has received the J&J vaccine did so in the past 1-3 weeks, which is in fact extremely high with nearly half administered in the past week alone. Further, the longer the delay between the vaccine being administered and the development of a clot, the less likely it is to be reported in connection with the vaccine. We should thus expect nearly all cases of background CVST to come from people who have recently received the vaccine. > plus we have to consider this very same thing showing up in the other vaccine of roughly the same type that's been widely prescribed in open societies, AZ/Oxford's. The AZ/oxford vaccine produces a different kind of clot, and its incidence rate is likewise not significantly above background levels. The fact AZ is being investigated with regards to blood clots is only more reason to be confident that blood clots in people who have recieved the vaccine are being accurately reported.