3 ms·

They are not alleged at this point, they are real, and we have enough data that proves it. Using a language that pretends that vaccines can't have lethal side e

They are not alleged at this point, they are real, and we have enough data that proves it. Using a language that pretends that vaccines can't have lethal side effects is just dividing people farther. It's all about the risk-reward calculation, which is still on the vaccine's side for most people. For a 18 year girl though it may be better to wait 2 weeks more for the Moderna / Pfizer vaccine in lockdown at home than to take the J&J or AstraZeneca. As an example my parents did the same thing (watching TV and using the elliptic machine for training, waiting 2-3 weeks more than their friends who got the Chinese vaccine).

Baeocystin 6y ago
From what I understand, we have data that shows a few people per million have a serious health condition that appears to be similar in order of magnitude as the normal background rate of the same condition without the vaccine. As someone else in this thread said, isn't that (potentially) like someone getting hit by a car, then calling that a side-effect? When dealing with very large numbers of people, there's going to be deaths at all ages due to the normal vagaries of life. Do we have enough information to be certain that these clots are genuinely above the background rate?
- xiphias2 6y ago
  What is the background rate of CVST / 2 weeks? I think it's significantky less that 1/million people
Igelau 6y ago
> They are not alleged at this point, they are real, and we have enough data that proves it. What was it? 6 cases out of 7 million doses? That doesn't even look like a correlation, let alone a side effect.
- mikem170 6y ago
  This article [0] mentions 50% more blood clots observed during vaccine trials, which at the time was characterized as a slight numerical imbalance (15 blood clots versus 10 in the placebo group, in a trial of 20k people) The 6 cases out of 7 million would appear to be the most serious/unusual/cerebral blood clots, but that number does not include all blood clots. I don't mean to advocate against the vaccine with these numbers, just add data. I see the 6 out of 7 million number batted around a lot and that's not a complete picture. [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-...

Baeocystin 6y ago

From what I understand, we have data that shows a few people per million have a serious health condition that appears to be similar in order of magnitude as the normal background rate of the same condition without the vaccine. As someone else in this thread said, isn't that (potentially) like someone getting hit by a car, then calling that a side-effect? When dealing with very large numbers of people, there's going to be deaths at all ages due to the normal vagaries of life. Do we have enough information to be certain that these clots are genuinely above the background rate?

xiphias2 6y ago
What is the background rate of CVST / 2 weeks? I think it's significantky less that 1/million people

Igelau 6y ago

> They are not alleged at this point, they are real, and we have enough data that proves it. What was it? 6 cases out of 7 million doses? That doesn't even look like a correlation, let alone a side effect.

mikem170 6y ago
This article [0] mentions 50% more blood clots observed during vaccine trials, which at the time was characterized as a slight numerical imbalance (15 blood clots versus 10 in the placebo group, in a trial of 20k people) The 6 cases out of 7 million would appear to be the most serious/unusual/cerebral blood clots, but that number does not include all blood clots. I don't mean to advocate against the vaccine with these numbers, just add data. I see the 6 out of 7 million number batted around a lot and that's not a complete picture. [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-...