24 ms·

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

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 it's 1 out of 7 million) vs a worldwide pandemic that has killed millions. All these anti-vaxers talking about living in fear of a virus that has 98% survival rate are AFRAID of a vaccine that has a 99.999998% ( 7/7,000,000 == 0.000001) survival rate, oh and is 100% effective at stopping you from dying. Literally no one that has received the vaccine has died from COVID19. The fact that modern society can be SO smart some times and yet so incredibly idiotic is so frustrating to me.

vibesngrooves 5y ago
This really is a sad, sobering reality. "6 cases in 6.8 million", ~0.00000089% chance of death via J&J vaccination. Extremely disheartening to see, but rather telling, where priorities lie. Politics aside, this is sheer stupidity, as you mentioned. Brace for another year as mutations continue to develop throughout the developing world while we waffle over infinitesimally minimal risk.
- vmception 5y ago
  There are 7 other vaccines in use simultaneously across major markets. JnJ has little effect on the strategy.
oceanplexian 5y ago
Multiple advanced health care systems in the world are independently pulling these vaccines. I wouldn’t brush it off as the FDA being overly cautious. None of these vaccines have been tested in humans for more than 12 months. And you’re assuming that health authorities can wave a magic want and instantly know who is having some kind of undetected brain clotting? I think the risks are extremely unclear even though people are throwing statistics around like they mean anything.
- ggreer 5y ago
  Not a single one of those health authorities allowed vaccine challenge trials. That tells you how much they care about saving lives versus how much they care about not getting blamed for any deaths.
  - yellow_postit 5y ago
    It does appear that challenge trials are starting, a search easily turned up this UK one: https://ukcovidchallenge.com/covid-19-volunteer-trials/ https://ukcovidchallenge.com/covid-19-volunteer-trials/ The main benefit of challenge trials is to speed up development as I understand it not to broaden risk estimates.
    - ggreer 5y ago
      > The main benefit of challenge trials is to speed up development as I understand it not to broaden risk estimates. Right, which is why it was crucial to have such trials a year ago. We could have shipped vaccines 3 months sooner and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Unfortunately, no health authority was willing to risk blame for any disabilities or deaths stemming from deliberately exposing consenting people to covid. So we had to use much larger sample sizes and wait longer to know which vaccine candidates were effective.
baggy_trough 5y ago
An utterly appalling decision by CYA bureaucrats or innumerate idiots. The leadership of the CDC and FDA must be replaced.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Rare big problems may be indicative of common small problems.
  - miketery 5y ago
    Good point, I hadn’t considered this. Also there was the factory QA issue. Possibly much like in aviation , multiple small factors here that need to be addressed and they’re using this as easy excuse to put pause.
    - joshgel 5y ago
      This is possible, but I work in medical research, and this pause is pretty standard practice. When there is a potential problem, you pause, gather more data, come up with a mitigation plan (if needed) and submit all this to the ethics authority (usually IRB). Its rote standard practice. And i think much more likely that they are following standard practice than there are hidden issues that haven't otherwise been revealed publicly yet. That said, this is not a usual situation at all, and I think it's absurd, not least because of lives potentially saved during this pause, but because of the carry on effects with vaccine hesitancy, etc.
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        We can only guess, but I would imagine that pausing would show that issues were being taken seriously and reduce hesitancy. Compare: - Government breaks standard practice in favor of J&J corporation, allowing sales to continue After These People Died!!1! - Government pauses J&J vaccine, experts condemn them for extreme caution.
- 34679 5y ago
FabHK 5y ago
If I have my numbers approximately right, getting the J&J vaccine is a bit safer than taking a plane trip, while getting COVID is about as safe as taking a trip in the space shuttle.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Your chance of dying from COVID is heavily dependent on your age and any preexisting conditions, so any comparison that uses a single probability for everyone is totally wrong for a very large number of people.
  - toast0 5y ago
    > Your chance of dying from COVID is heavily dependent on your age and any preexisting conditions, so any comparison that uses a single probability for everyone is totally wrong for a very large number of people. It also depends on the rate of community spread (and what's spreading) in the communities you're in.
  - CyberRabbi 5y ago
    The exact same caveat can be made for people who are vulnerable to the extreme side effects of the J&J vaccine. It depends on specific characteristics of the person taking the vaccine. “any comparison that uses a single probability for everyone is totally wrong for a very large number of people.”
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Yes, with the key point that the people who are most at risk of dying from the vaccine are a different set of people than those most at risk of dying from COVID.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    To be fair space launches are probably quite lethal for the many in the general population.
  - sergiotapia 5y ago
devwastaken 5y ago
I believe their concern is more of long term effects and not short term. A vaccine isn't meant to cause blood clotting, unless we know the specific mechanism of how that's happening it could be much more dangerous.
- hef19898 5y ago
  No doctor or expert. But I did follow the AZ story. I understood, that Covid can cause blood cloths. A vaccine triggers an immune reaction, in that case Covid, so a particularly strong immune reaction, maybe together with a preposition of developing blood clots, can be a reason. Not sure if we know already what causes these side effects with AZ an JJ. From a risk perspective, I wouldn't restrict either vaccine. But since we can easily use Moderna and BiontechPfizer instead for the most at risk groups it doesn't really change things, does it?
- pvarangot 5y ago
  Most immune reactions will cause blood thickening. If your arteries are already full of crap they will clot, this is why if you are at risk of blood clots you need to be careful even when you get the common cold.
jonplackett 5y ago
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 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
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  Yes, and probably staying in bed will have its own risk of blood clots and depression leading to suicide.
- vibesngrooves 5y ago
  Love this work!
- CamelCaseName 5y ago
  Application Error
  - jonplackett 5y ago
    HN classic. upgraded its dyno a bit. Thought cloudflare would save me...
- hyko 5y ago
  I’d probably be careful using this as a public health communication tool; you’re comparing these risks to things like flying, which people are viscerally afraid of. Not to mention that the CVST issue is a poorly understood and evolving picture, so it’s hard to confidently assert that the risk is actually a micromort. The perceptive gap between zero risk and extremely small risk is enormous. If I’m young and healthy, I can easily avoid the additional 1 micromort risk of taking the vaccine by simply not taking it. Now what?
  - jonplackett 5y ago
doikor 5y ago
The problem isn't 7 out of 7 million odds. It is that it is an unknown side effect that did not come up in the original studies. We have approved vaccines with worse side effects before. The difference is that we knew what those side effects were and weighed the risk vs reward and made the call to use it.
- FunnyLookinHat 5y ago
  Yeah and we only just started to roll this vaccine out - so it's fair to say that the risk will likely grow beyond that. You're right that 7 / 7,000,000 are good odds, and most people would likely take them - but it would be unwise to not give people an educated choice between vaccines if there are known risks.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    > 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.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      In this case, the numerator lags the denominator. > All six cases were in women aged between 18 and 48, with symptoms appearing six to 13 days after vaccination. Presumably, some of the 7 million people who have gotten the vaccine did so in the prior 5-12 days. It is reasonable to expect to see more cases over the next 6-13 days from the moment we pause J&J vaccination.
      - caddemon 5y ago
        Also, if the effected group is only young women, the denominator isn't really the same as the total number vaccinated. Not saying it isn't still very rare, but in young people COVID deaths are also very rare. We have alternative vaccines, it makes perfect sense to advise young women against J&J for the time being while this is sorted out. And for anyone that thinks this is just normal incidence of blood clots being blamed on the vaccine - that's what was said about AstraZeneca originally, and if these clots are anything like those it is absolutely not the case. Those are serious clots that are very rare to see period, let alone in young people, and require different treatment than normal clots (they have surprisingly low platelet count). I suspect US agencies had good reason to want to pause J&J given all of that - the AZ vaccine issues were also disproportionately affecting women interestingly.
kodah 5y ago
> a virus that has 98% survival rate You know, for all the continual fear mongering about coronavirus last year, the constant reminders of who was most at risk, the hyper importance put on masks and cleanliness, etc it is shocking to see things put this way now.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  That's because long term consequences of COVID are real, and worrying just about the worst case (the death rate) is like saying that data leaks are no big deal because only 2% of them lead to the loss of their customer's life savings.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Sure, but this is the downside of technocracy. The messaging and subsequent whiplash are entirely kafka-esque to normal people.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    I am not so sure those long term effects (except those that lead to blood cloths) are real. A quick duck duck go shows that these are the symptoms: Tiredness or fatigue Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”) Headache Loss of smell or taste Dizziness on standing Fast-beating or pounding heart (also known as heart palpitations) Chest pain Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath Cough Joint or muscle pain Depression or anxiety Fever Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental activities Apart from the loss of smell, those are all things that are hard to quantify and could be something you are not aware of until you start looking for them. At which point you might become anexious and really start to notice them.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  The actual survival rate is far higher than 98%, that's just the number you get if you use confirmed cases as the denominator.
  - 5y ago
sp332 5y ago
They didn't pause it because they're considering cancelling it. They're pausing it so they can communicate to patients and providers what to look out for after they take it. Once processes are in place to handle future blood clot events, they will resume vaccinations.
- vmception 5y ago
  I’ve been thinking about this, the communication has been so bad from public and private health officials for 15 months straight. When not considering any externalities, anti-vaxxers and everyone that comes up with anti-industry and anti-establishment conclusions is rational, but inaccurate only because they dont consider what was not said. Even with regard to COVID itself, most of the official communication is about avoiding death when the reality is that its not about only avoiding death its about all the additional debilitating effects in the vast “recovered” statistic, so it is rational to decide to ignore that once you do your own math and noticing who is actually dying. But it is not accurate because it doesn't factor in the unsaid aspect.
  - sp332 5y ago
    The reason for the pause was explicitly stated by the health officials as quoted in the article, so I don't know why you'd say this was unclear let alone unsaid.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Because the headline drives sentiment Its not just the internet, TV and radio also jump on the headline The entirety of my comment is a cohesive statement and not just about this headline
- modularform123 5y ago
  The fatality rate for this adverse event was almost 30% with the similar Astra Zeneca vaccine. Fuck your vaccine propaganda. Nobody in my family will be getting this vaccine.
- 5y ago
ridethebike 5y ago
I wonder if we randomly select 7 million people (without vaccine) and observe them for couple of months - how many of them will get the blood cloths
- lsllc 5y ago
  According to this BBC News article, it's 4 per 1M: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55302595 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55302595 Quote: "The MHRA said about four people in a million would normally be expected to develop this particular kind of blood clot - though the fact they are so rare makes the usual rate hard to estimate."
- atq2119 5y ago
  That was my first thought as well. However, both vaccines with this issue are viral vector vaccines. Might be coincidence of course, but it gives me pause.
cowmoo728 5y ago
On the medical benefits alone it seems obvious to continue giving J&J. The counter-argument I understand is that J&J's supply is severely limited due to manufacturing problems right now, so pausing it doesn't significantly slow down the vaccine rollout. There are a lot of people right now that saw headlines about J&J's manufacturing defects, and now this one death, and are convinced those are related. Visibly pausing something that is such a small percentage of the vaccine rollout might be a good political move. Full disclosure: I took the J&J vaccine last Thursday, and would do so again right now.
weeblewobble 5y ago
It could be that the side effect has delayed onset, so there could be many people out there who are about to have the side effect but haven't showed up in stats yet. In that case I think it makes sense to pause for a while and wait for updated numbers
rhino369 5y ago
Nobody has investigated 7 million doses, so its at least 7, but probably more. The UK incidence rate (for the same issue in the AZ vax) was like 10X what was initially reported. And its probable that these incidents are concentrated in a small segment of the population (young & health maybe women). So your denominator is very inflated. If you can save 20-40 lives by just giving young women Pfizer and using J&J on 50+ year olds (for whom the risk might be literally nothing) then its a no brainer. Not doing so is killing 20-40 people for no reason.
- sharken 5y ago
  It's all pretty speculative at this point, but it seems very reasonable to investigate the J&J vaccine as it causes the same problems as AZ. When that investigation ends, then the J&J vaccine can be opened up for those willing to take the risk, which by that time is better known. I think we still have to remember that vaccinating everybody is not needed to resume a normal life. Personally I wouldn't want a vaccine with the problems that AZ and J&J have, but if others are willing then they should have the opportunity.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Yes this is the rationale Canadian authorities have used in making AZ 55+ only here. Some calculation based on risk of COVID mortality in that population vs the hypothetical AZ risk. At first I was skeptical of this but the more I read about it the more it seems like a reasonable approach. Even more so because here in Canada we do not have much AZ yet anyways (and no J&J yet), mostly Pfizer and Moderna.
outworlder 5y ago
> That's why they stopped. More to the point, they have temporarily paused because the usual treatment for blood clots can make this particular type of blood clot worse. So they are pausing to give the medical community enough lead time to get up to date on treatment protocols. Vaccines are held to such a high standard. We wouldn't have approved even Aspirin if we applied the same standards.
throwaway8581 5y ago
We usually test vaccines for a decade because of the risk of unknown short term and long term side effects. If we don't know why people are getting blood clots from the vaccine, then we don't understand the vaccine and could be creating long term issues for many people.
- hef19898 5y ago
  We don't. Vaccines are monitored, called phase 4 trials. Taking place after approval. No vaccine was tested for decades before approval. It is only that development and approval takes longer, in case of the Covid vaccines approval red tape was cut. And not trials.
duckfang 5y ago
Birth control is already severe blood clots at 1:1000 . Only affects people with uteruses. That's cool. This is 1:1000000 of a severe event, but affects men as well. HOLD THE LINE - It affects a.... Man!
- covid_throwaway 5y ago
  According to the article, all 6 cases were in women
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what the site is for and we ban that sort of account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
throwawaysea 5y ago
I think that's not a very charitable take on "anti-vaxers". People are against injecting something new that has not stood the test of time. We have no idea what the actual frequency of this issue is (maybe more reports will come in), or if there are other lurking side effects waiting to be observed as a pattern, or if there are long-term effects. What if news of this spurs others to make the connection with the J&J vaccine and more such cases are reported to the CDC? Or looking at the other vaccines, what if in 30 years we somehow establish a link between mRNA vaccines and cancer? I'm sure people will be tempted to jump in here and state their case as to why certain long term effects are not possible, and why this is conspiracy theory misinformation. But that's not the point. The reality is that humans regularly fail to understand infrequent or long-term consequences of new innovations, despite the best of intentions and despite the use of the best science available at the time. This has happened repeatedly in the past - see numerous prescription drugs that were recalled, or the use of phthalates in shampoos, or asbestos, or whatever else. In the case of J&J, consider that this is happening against a backdrop of a continuously changing story about the AstraZeneca vaccine, increasing reports of COVID vaccines affecting menstruation (https://vajenda.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-menstrual https://vajenda.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-mens...), and a rushed emergency use authorization process that bypasses typical methodology for approvals of vaccines. The comparison isn't between the IFR of COVID-19 and the fatality rate associated with this vaccine. It's between the IFR of COVID-19, which is known to be very low, and the unbounded potential of near-term or long-term fatality or other side effects from the vaccine.
- Verdex 5y ago
  In addition, I'm very concerned that if we call people afraid of the covid vaccines anti-vaxxers that they will decide to join forces with real anti-vaxxers. I know several people who are not interested in covid vaccines for what as far as I can tell are political reasons (although there are a few concerns about using a new technology before long term studies are performed). Right now they aren't anti-vaxxers. They get vaccines and they get their children vaccinated. It's just the new covid ones that they're hesitant about. If we just lump them in with anti-vaxxers then they might decide to go make friends with the real anti-vaxxers. And as a big of a problem as covid has been, I'm more concerned about polio making a comeback tour.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
Whether it's .0000000001 or .001 chance of dying it's a non-zero chance of dying. So where does one draw the line? What level of shutting something down is justifiable in the name of safety? Who is allowed to make that subjective decision? It's a slippery slope. It's arguable that we should wear masks FOREVER because they reduce death rates for every respiratory disease. This feeling. Of why are shutting down because of these few lives. Is exactly how people have felt about shutting down the whole economy over the small-ish fatality rate of Coronvirus. There's just different levels of risk tolerance. Who is the more moral person?
Verdex 5y ago
> I've already seen a bunch of anit-vaxers referring to this in new articles this morning. So, take pause and examine the situation. Are these people actually anti-vaxxers, ie they oppose all vaccination due to weird paranoia about autism due to a discredited "study". OR are they against this one vaccine because of political affiliation. I'm really concerned that if we call out the people who are afraid of this one vaccine as anti-vaxxers that we'll only succeed in introducing them to the wider world of being afraid of all vaccines. Find a different term so that we don't introduce these two groups of people to one another and give them a reason to join forces.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  > OR are they against this one vaccine because of political affiliation. It's not easily attributable to "political affiliation." Trump was touting the vaccines through his whole campaign and is still bragging and taking credit for them. MSNBC did one of those TV segments where they go and interview backwards people from America's hinterland who weren't planning to get vaccinated, and although most were Trump voters, not a single one said they would change their mind if he advocated taking it. The actual difference between these vaccines and others which is driving skepticism is that we have no observational data about their long-term effects.
- caddemon 5y ago
  It goes beyond "radicalizing" potential anti-vaxxers IMO, because at this point it's become like its own religion, where every vaccine must be equally good and questioning a vaccine is somehow outrageous. US agencies are the ones recommending a halt. US refused to approve AZ, and Europe halted it, in many countries imposing additional restrictions when resumed. Doctors specializing in the field agree these are legitimate concerns. If people want to argue cost/benefit tradeoffs, or speculate on things we aren't sure about yet that's totally cool, as long as they are upfront about it. And I understand if someone still wants to get J&J and is upset or just generally disagrees with the total/forceful pause. But I don't understand treating anyone that has a concern about J&J like a brainwashed neanderthal, when literally the actual medical community has reservations about this particular vaccine. As a young woman I would not get J&J right now. Luckily I was able to get Pfizer instead. Anyway, I agree there is a problem more generally with scientific education that can push "moderately misinformed" people into much deeper rabbit holes instead of working to educate them. I guess my point is just that I think this is a good example of how people have gotten so entrenched in the issue that it has reached a new level. There will be cases when the science is legitimately unclear, but the popular sentiment will all of a suddenly decide "science says X" and then the internet runs with it. Another example - there was an ~2 week period last March where I had multiple educated/"science supporting" friends talk down to anyone considering a mask. No it was not coming from a hoarding perspective and it had 0 sense of uncertainty about it. These were strongly worded statements about how "masks don't do anything for COVID, the science is pretty clear".
hamadj 5y ago
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 this if Moderna/Pfizer are readily available anywy. In countries where there are not alternative vaccines available, the risk calculations change, and as such, you might be better off taking J&J or AZ. In any case, to your earlier point of why they stopped it: they didn't stop it because (7/7 million), they stopped it because it was not observed in the trials and now they have to recalculate the risks for various age-groups and inform people, accordingly. If these events were observed in the trials and the prevalence was the same (in trial, and out of trial) then it would not be a cause for concern. Edit: got the wrong agency, it was FDA, not CDC
- kordlessagain 5y ago
  > I've already seen a bunch of anit-vaxers referring to this It's not only a disservice, it's a biased way of thinking which only serves the one making the statement, given it allows them a way to alleviate their concerns about having received a level of uncertainty from their actions. I get them them because I also got that shot!
- thelean12 5y ago
  > 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. Anything else is just the blind leading the blind and should be called out.
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    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!
coding123 5y ago
By not stopping it will forever by 7 out of 7 million. By stopping they can at least find out if it's 5000 out of 7 million (and more deaths).
- electrondood 5y ago
  7 people got sick, not died.
Nacdor 5y ago
> The fact that modern society can be SO smart some times and yet so incredibly idiotic is so frustrating to me. The CDC and FDA both agree that use of the J&J vaccine should be paused so they can further study this previously unknown side effect. Maybe someone here could help you get in touch with them since you clearly know something they don't?
JediWing 5y ago
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 until further analysis is done.
- moate 5y ago
  6 Women aged 18-48.
- mzs 5y ago
  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. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-updated-information-about-risk-blood-clots-women-taking-birth-control https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-d... 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. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497120417847 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000649712...
HWR_14 5y ago
It's not the risk of clots. It's the risk of vaccine hesitancy because people fear a cover up. I think that's outweighed by the increased vaccine hesitancy because people only hear this scary story and not the low numbers (see also AstroZeneca).
- spikels 5y ago
  Unfortunately this "pause" will also result in vaccine hesitancy (on top of vaccination delays). We know this from the EU experience with the AstraZeneca vaccine which is now distrusted by many people. This will almost certainly now be a problem with the J&J vaccine in the US. More people will get sick and die because of this. https://www.politico.eu/article/trust-oxford-astrazeneca-coronavirus-vaccine-wanes-europe-survey https://www.politico.eu/article/trust-oxford-astrazeneca-cor...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AndrewBissell 5y ago
> oh and is 100% effective at stopping you from dying. Literally no one that has received the vaccine has died from COVID19. This is misinformation (and I call it that because it is being widely repeated in major new sources). It's an improper generalization from what was observed in a very small sample of confirmed Covid cases in the vaccine trials. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/11/3-breakthrough-covid-19-coronavirus-deaths-among-700000-fully-vaccinated-in-oregon/?sh=663191a4333f https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/11/3-breakthro...
- lefrancaiz 5y ago
  You're correct. NPR has reported some deaths in vaccinated people in this article. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/13/986411423/a-mystery-under-study-how-why-and-when-covid-vaccines-arent-fully-protective https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/13/9864114... >So far, more than 74 million people have gotten fully vaccinated in the United States. It's unclear how many have later gotten infected with the coronavirus anyway. But Michigan, Washington and other states have reported hundreds of cases. Most people have gotten only mildly ill, but some have gotten very sick. Some have even died.
Dumblydorr 5y ago
Modern society is not monolithic. It is a vast chaotic network, many nodes of which are surrounded by other nodes, all of which are misinformed.
sergiotapia 5y ago
Question for you, if you like those odds, why get the vaccine at all? If you're not obese covid won't do anything to you except give you a lil flu. Curious about your answer.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  1) Vaccination is also about stopping the overall spread of infections. Vaccination is for the greater good, not just your own good. 2) It's still very possible to have a Very Bad Time with covid if you're not obese.
  - sergiotapia 5y ago
    >Vaccination is also about stopping the overall spread of infections. Then why are people still asked to wear masks in stores even if they are vaccinated? I've heard from the media non-stop that even if you have the vaccination you need to wear a mask - it doesn't make sense.
    - sdenton4 5y ago
      Because: a) it's not entirely whether vaccinated people can still be carriers. I think it's now /mostly/ clear that they don't. b) people are fscking awful. If you let vaccinated people not wear masks, you're going to have a bunch of philosophical zombies lying about their vaccination status to avoid wearing masks in public spaces. So, everybody wears masks until this thing is over and then some.
tomjen3 5y ago
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.
williesleg 5y ago
You've got those numbers wrong.
ryankemper 5y ago
> All these anti-vaxers talking about living in fear of a virus that has 98% survival rate Please cite a source here. Survival rate usually means IFR not CFR, and even the CDC's own number (the CDC is going to be incentivized to overstate risk) puts it at around a 99.4% general survival rate. Other estimates put it closer to 99.7% or even higher.

vibesngrooves 5y ago

This really is a sad, sobering reality. "6 cases in 6.8 million", ~0.00000089% chance of death via J&J vaccination. Extremely disheartening to see, but rather telling, where priorities lie. Politics aside, this is sheer stupidity, as you mentioned. Brace for another year as mutations continue to develop throughout the developing world while we waffle over infinitesimally minimal risk.

vmception 5y ago
There are 7 other vaccines in use simultaneously across major markets. JnJ has little effect on the strategy.

oceanplexian 5y ago

Multiple advanced health care systems in the world are independently pulling these vaccines. I wouldn’t brush it off as the FDA being overly cautious. None of these vaccines have been tested in humans for more than 12 months. And you’re assuming that health authorities can wave a magic want and instantly know who is having some kind of undetected brain clotting? I think the risks are extremely unclear even though people are throwing statistics around like they mean anything.

ggreer 5y ago
Not a single one of those health authorities allowed vaccine challenge trials. That tells you how much they care about saving lives versus how much they care about not getting blamed for any deaths.
- yellow_postit 5y ago
  It does appear that challenge trials are starting, a search easily turned up this UK one: https://ukcovidchallenge.com/covid-19-volunteer-trials/ https://ukcovidchallenge.com/covid-19-volunteer-trials/ The main benefit of challenge trials is to speed up development as I understand it not to broaden risk estimates.
  - ggreer 5y ago
    > The main benefit of challenge trials is to speed up development as I understand it not to broaden risk estimates. Right, which is why it was crucial to have such trials a year ago. We could have shipped vaccines 3 months sooner and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Unfortunately, no health authority was willing to risk blame for any disabilities or deaths stemming from deliberately exposing consenting people to covid. So we had to use much larger sample sizes and wait longer to know which vaccine candidates were effective.

baggy_trough 5y ago

An utterly appalling decision by CYA bureaucrats or innumerate idiots. The leadership of the CDC and FDA must be replaced.

whatshisface 5y ago
Rare big problems may be indicative of common small problems.
- miketery 5y ago
  Good point, I hadn’t considered this. Also there was the factory QA issue. Possibly much like in aviation , multiple small factors here that need to be addressed and they’re using this as easy excuse to put pause.
  - joshgel 5y ago
    This is possible, but I work in medical research, and this pause is pretty standard practice. When there is a potential problem, you pause, gather more data, come up with a mitigation plan (if needed) and submit all this to the ethics authority (usually IRB). Its rote standard practice. And i think much more likely that they are following standard practice than there are hidden issues that haven't otherwise been revealed publicly yet. That said, this is not a usual situation at all, and I think it's absurd, not least because of lives potentially saved during this pause, but because of the carry on effects with vaccine hesitancy, etc.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      We can only guess, but I would imagine that pausing would show that issues were being taken seriously and reduce hesitancy. Compare: - Government breaks standard practice in favor of J&J corporation, allowing sales to continue After These People Died!!1! - Government pauses J&J vaccine, experts condemn them for extreme caution.
34679 5y ago

FabHK 5y ago

If I have my numbers approximately right, getting the J&J vaccine is a bit safer than taking a plane trip, while getting COVID is about as safe as taking a trip in the space shuttle.

josephcsible 5y ago
Your chance of dying from COVID is heavily dependent on your age and any preexisting conditions, so any comparison that uses a single probability for everyone is totally wrong for a very large number of people.
- toast0 5y ago
  > Your chance of dying from COVID is heavily dependent on your age and any preexisting conditions, so any comparison that uses a single probability for everyone is totally wrong for a very large number of people. It also depends on the rate of community spread (and what's spreading) in the communities you're in.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  The exact same caveat can be made for people who are vulnerable to the extreme side effects of the J&J vaccine. It depends on specific characteristics of the person taking the vaccine. “any comparison that uses a single probability for everyone is totally wrong for a very large number of people.”
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Yes, with the key point that the people who are most at risk of dying from the vaccine are a different set of people than those most at risk of dying from COVID.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  To be fair space launches are probably quite lethal for the many in the general population.
- sergiotapia 5y ago

devwastaken 5y ago

I believe their concern is more of long term effects and not short term. A vaccine isn't meant to cause blood clotting, unless we know the specific mechanism of how that's happening it could be much more dangerous.

hef19898 5y ago
No doctor or expert. But I did follow the AZ story. I understood, that Covid can cause blood cloths. A vaccine triggers an immune reaction, in that case Covid, so a particularly strong immune reaction, maybe together with a preposition of developing blood clots, can be a reason. Not sure if we know already what causes these side effects with AZ an JJ. From a risk perspective, I wouldn't restrict either vaccine. But since we can easily use Moderna and BiontechPfizer instead for the most at risk groups it doesn't really change things, does it?
pvarangot 5y ago
Most immune reactions will cause blood thickening. If your arteries are already full of crap they will clot, this is why if you are at risk of blood clots you need to be careful even when you get the common cold.

jonplackett 5y ago

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 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

andy_ppp 5y ago
Yes, and probably staying in bed will have its own risk of blood clots and depression leading to suicide.
vibesngrooves 5y ago
Love this work!
CamelCaseName 5y ago
Application Error
- jonplackett 5y ago
  HN classic. upgraded its dyno a bit. Thought cloudflare would save me...
hyko 5y ago
I’d probably be careful using this as a public health communication tool; you’re comparing these risks to things like flying, which people are viscerally afraid of. Not to mention that the CVST issue is a poorly understood and evolving picture, so it’s hard to confidently assert that the risk is actually a micromort. The perceptive gap between zero risk and extremely small risk is enormous. If I’m young and healthy, I can easily avoid the additional 1 micromort risk of taking the vaccine by simply not taking it. Now what?
- jonplackett 5y ago

doikor 5y ago

The problem isn't 7 out of 7 million odds. It is that it is an unknown side effect that did not come up in the original studies. We have approved vaccines with worse side effects before. The difference is that we knew what those side effects were and weighed the risk vs reward and made the call to use it.

FunnyLookinHat 5y ago
Yeah and we only just started to roll this vaccine out - so it's fair to say that the risk will likely grow beyond that. You're right that 7 / 7,000,000 are good odds, and most people would likely take them - but it would be unwise to not give people an educated choice between vaccines if there are known risks.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  > 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.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    In this case, the numerator lags the denominator. > All six cases were in women aged between 18 and 48, with symptoms appearing six to 13 days after vaccination. Presumably, some of the 7 million people who have gotten the vaccine did so in the prior 5-12 days. It is reasonable to expect to see more cases over the next 6-13 days from the moment we pause J&J vaccination.
    - caddemon 5y ago
      Also, if the effected group is only young women, the denominator isn't really the same as the total number vaccinated. Not saying it isn't still very rare, but in young people COVID deaths are also very rare. We have alternative vaccines, it makes perfect sense to advise young women against J&J for the time being while this is sorted out. And for anyone that thinks this is just normal incidence of blood clots being blamed on the vaccine - that's what was said about AstraZeneca originally, and if these clots are anything like those it is absolutely not the case. Those are serious clots that are very rare to see period, let alone in young people, and require different treatment than normal clots (they have surprisingly low platelet count). I suspect US agencies had good reason to want to pause J&J given all of that - the AZ vaccine issues were also disproportionately affecting women interestingly.

kodah 5y ago

> a virus that has 98% survival rate You know, for all the continual fear mongering about coronavirus last year, the constant reminders of who was most at risk, the hyper importance put on masks and cleanliness, etc it is shocking to see things put this way now.

HWR_14 5y ago
That's because long term consequences of COVID are real, and worrying just about the worst case (the death rate) is like saying that data leaks are no big deal because only 2% of them lead to the loss of their customer's life savings.
- kodah 5y ago
  Sure, but this is the downside of technocracy. The messaging and subsequent whiplash are entirely kafka-esque to normal people.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  I am not so sure those long term effects (except those that lead to blood cloths) are real. A quick duck duck go shows that these are the symptoms: Tiredness or fatigue Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”) Headache Loss of smell or taste Dizziness on standing Fast-beating or pounding heart (also known as heart palpitations) Chest pain Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath Cough Joint or muscle pain Depression or anxiety Fever Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental activities Apart from the loss of smell, those are all things that are hard to quantify and could be something you are not aware of until you start looking for them. At which point you might become anexious and really start to notice them.
AndrewBissell 5y ago
The actual survival rate is far higher than 98%, that's just the number you get if you use confirmed cases as the denominator.
- 5y ago

sp332 5y ago

They didn't pause it because they're considering cancelling it. They're pausing it so they can communicate to patients and providers what to look out for after they take it. Once processes are in place to handle future blood clot events, they will resume vaccinations.

vmception 5y ago
I’ve been thinking about this, the communication has been so bad from public and private health officials for 15 months straight. When not considering any externalities, anti-vaxxers and everyone that comes up with anti-industry and anti-establishment conclusions is rational, but inaccurate only because they dont consider what was not said. Even with regard to COVID itself, most of the official communication is about avoiding death when the reality is that its not about only avoiding death its about all the additional debilitating effects in the vast “recovered” statistic, so it is rational to decide to ignore that once you do your own math and noticing who is actually dying. But it is not accurate because it doesn't factor in the unsaid aspect.
- sp332 5y ago
  The reason for the pause was explicitly stated by the health officials as quoted in the article, so I don't know why you'd say this was unclear let alone unsaid.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Because the headline drives sentiment Its not just the internet, TV and radio also jump on the headline The entirety of my comment is a cohesive statement and not just about this headline
modularform123 5y ago
The fatality rate for this adverse event was almost 30% with the similar Astra Zeneca vaccine. Fuck your vaccine propaganda. Nobody in my family will be getting this vaccine.
5y ago

ridethebike 5y ago

I wonder if we randomly select 7 million people (without vaccine) and observe them for couple of months - how many of them will get the blood cloths

lsllc 5y ago
According to this BBC News article, it's 4 per 1M: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55302595 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55302595 Quote: "The MHRA said about four people in a million would normally be expected to develop this particular kind of blood clot - though the fact they are so rare makes the usual rate hard to estimate."
atq2119 5y ago
That was my first thought as well. However, both vaccines with this issue are viral vector vaccines. Might be coincidence of course, but it gives me pause.

cowmoo728 5y ago

On the medical benefits alone it seems obvious to continue giving J&J. The counter-argument I understand is that J&J's supply is severely limited due to manufacturing problems right now, so pausing it doesn't significantly slow down the vaccine rollout. There are a lot of people right now that saw headlines about J&J's manufacturing defects, and now this one death, and are convinced those are related. Visibly pausing something that is such a small percentage of the vaccine rollout might be a good political move. Full disclosure: I took the J&J vaccine last Thursday, and would do so again right now.

weeblewobble 5y ago

It could be that the side effect has delayed onset, so there could be many people out there who are about to have the side effect but haven't showed up in stats yet. In that case I think it makes sense to pause for a while and wait for updated numbers

rhino369 5y ago

Nobody has investigated 7 million doses, so its at least 7, but probably more. The UK incidence rate (for the same issue in the AZ vax) was like 10X what was initially reported. And its probable that these incidents are concentrated in a small segment of the population (young & health maybe women). So your denominator is very inflated. If you can save 20-40 lives by just giving young women Pfizer and using J&J on 50+ year olds (for whom the risk might be literally nothing) then its a no brainer. Not doing so is killing 20-40 people for no reason.

sharken 5y ago
It's all pretty speculative at this point, but it seems very reasonable to investigate the J&J vaccine as it causes the same problems as AZ. When that investigation ends, then the J&J vaccine can be opened up for those willing to take the risk, which by that time is better known. I think we still have to remember that vaccinating everybody is not needed to resume a normal life. Personally I wouldn't want a vaccine with the problems that AZ and J&J have, but if others are willing then they should have the opportunity.
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Yes this is the rationale Canadian authorities have used in making AZ 55+ only here. Some calculation based on risk of COVID mortality in that population vs the hypothetical AZ risk. At first I was skeptical of this but the more I read about it the more it seems like a reasonable approach. Even more so because here in Canada we do not have much AZ yet anyways (and no J&J yet), mostly Pfizer and Moderna.

outworlder 5y ago

> That's why they stopped. More to the point, they have temporarily paused because the usual treatment for blood clots can make this particular type of blood clot worse. So they are pausing to give the medical community enough lead time to get up to date on treatment protocols. Vaccines are held to such a high standard. We wouldn't have approved even Aspirin if we applied the same standards.

throwaway8581 5y ago

We usually test vaccines for a decade because of the risk of unknown short term and long term side effects. If we don't know why people are getting blood clots from the vaccine, then we don't understand the vaccine and could be creating long term issues for many people.

hef19898 5y ago
We don't. Vaccines are monitored, called phase 4 trials. Taking place after approval. No vaccine was tested for decades before approval. It is only that development and approval takes longer, in case of the Covid vaccines approval red tape was cut. And not trials.

duckfang 5y ago

Birth control is already severe blood clots at 1:1000 . Only affects people with uteruses. That's cool. This is 1:1000000 of a severe event, but affects men as well. HOLD THE LINE - It affects a.... Man!

covid_throwaway 5y ago
According to the article, all 6 cases were in women
dang 5y ago
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what the site is for and we ban that sort of account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

throwawaysea 5y ago

I think that's not a very charitable take on "anti-vaxers". People are against injecting something new that has not stood the test of time. We have no idea what the actual frequency of this issue is (maybe more reports will come in), or if there are other lurking side effects waiting to be observed as a pattern, or if there are long-term effects. What if news of this spurs others to make the connection with the J&J vaccine and more such cases are reported to the CDC? Or looking at the other vaccines, what if in 30 years we somehow establish a link between mRNA vaccines and cancer? I'm sure people will be tempted to jump in here and state their case as to why certain long term effects are not possible, and why this is conspiracy theory misinformation. But that's not the point. The reality is that humans regularly fail to understand infrequent or long-term consequences of new innovations, despite the best of intentions and despite the use of the best science available at the time. This has happened repeatedly in the past - see numerous prescription drugs that were recalled, or the use of phthalates in shampoos, or asbestos, or whatever else. In the case of J&J, consider that this is happening against a backdrop of a continuously changing story about the AstraZeneca vaccine, increasing reports of COVID vaccines affecting menstruation (https://vajenda.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-menstrual https://vajenda.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-mens...), and a rushed emergency use authorization process that bypasses typical methodology for approvals of vaccines. The comparison isn't between the IFR of COVID-19 and the fatality rate associated with this vaccine. It's between the IFR of COVID-19, which is known to be very low, and the unbounded potential of near-term or long-term fatality or other side effects from the vaccine.

Verdex 5y ago
In addition, I'm very concerned that if we call people afraid of the covid vaccines anti-vaxxers that they will decide to join forces with real anti-vaxxers. I know several people who are not interested in covid vaccines for what as far as I can tell are political reasons (although there are a few concerns about using a new technology before long term studies are performed). Right now they aren't anti-vaxxers. They get vaccines and they get their children vaccinated. It's just the new covid ones that they're hesitant about. If we just lump them in with anti-vaxxers then they might decide to go make friends with the real anti-vaxxers. And as a big of a problem as covid has been, I'm more concerned about polio making a comeback tour.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Whether it's .0000000001 or .001 chance of dying it's a non-zero chance of dying. So where does one draw the line? What level of shutting something down is justifiable in the name of safety? Who is allowed to make that subjective decision? It's a slippery slope. It's arguable that we should wear masks FOREVER because they reduce death rates for every respiratory disease. This feeling. Of why are shutting down because of these few lives. Is exactly how people have felt about shutting down the whole economy over the small-ish fatality rate of Coronvirus. There's just different levels of risk tolerance. Who is the more moral person?

Verdex 5y ago

> I've already seen a bunch of anit-vaxers referring to this in new articles this morning. So, take pause and examine the situation. Are these people actually anti-vaxxers, ie they oppose all vaccination due to weird paranoia about autism due to a discredited "study". OR are they against this one vaccine because of political affiliation. I'm really concerned that if we call out the people who are afraid of this one vaccine as anti-vaxxers that we'll only succeed in introducing them to the wider world of being afraid of all vaccines. Find a different term so that we don't introduce these two groups of people to one another and give them a reason to join forces.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
> OR are they against this one vaccine because of political affiliation. It's not easily attributable to "political affiliation." Trump was touting the vaccines through his whole campaign and is still bragging and taking credit for them. MSNBC did one of those TV segments where they go and interview backwards people from America's hinterland who weren't planning to get vaccinated, and although most were Trump voters, not a single one said they would change their mind if he advocated taking it. The actual difference between these vaccines and others which is driving skepticism is that we have no observational data about their long-term effects.
caddemon 5y ago
It goes beyond "radicalizing" potential anti-vaxxers IMO, because at this point it's become like its own religion, where every vaccine must be equally good and questioning a vaccine is somehow outrageous. US agencies are the ones recommending a halt. US refused to approve AZ, and Europe halted it, in many countries imposing additional restrictions when resumed. Doctors specializing in the field agree these are legitimate concerns. If people want to argue cost/benefit tradeoffs, or speculate on things we aren't sure about yet that's totally cool, as long as they are upfront about it. And I understand if someone still wants to get J&J and is upset or just generally disagrees with the total/forceful pause. But I don't understand treating anyone that has a concern about J&J like a brainwashed neanderthal, when literally the actual medical community has reservations about this particular vaccine. As a young woman I would not get J&J right now. Luckily I was able to get Pfizer instead. Anyway, I agree there is a problem more generally with scientific education that can push "moderately misinformed" people into much deeper rabbit holes instead of working to educate them. I guess my point is just that I think this is a good example of how people have gotten so entrenched in the issue that it has reached a new level. There will be cases when the science is legitimately unclear, but the popular sentiment will all of a suddenly decide "science says X" and then the internet runs with it. Another example - there was an ~2 week period last March where I had multiple educated/"science supporting" friends talk down to anyone considering a mask. No it was not coming from a hoarding perspective and it had 0 sense of uncertainty about it. These were strongly worded statements about how "masks don't do anything for COVID, the science is pretty clear".

hamadj 5y ago

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 this if Moderna/Pfizer are readily available anywy. In countries where there are not alternative vaccines available, the risk calculations change, and as such, you might be better off taking J&J or AZ. In any case, to your earlier point of why they stopped it: they didn't stop it because (7/7 million), they stopped it because it was not observed in the trials and now they have to recalculate the risks for various age-groups and inform people, accordingly. If these events were observed in the trials and the prevalence was the same (in trial, and out of trial) then it would not be a cause for concern. Edit: got the wrong agency, it was FDA, not CDC

kordlessagain 5y ago
> I've already seen a bunch of anit-vaxers referring to this It's not only a disservice, it's a biased way of thinking which only serves the one making the statement, given it allows them a way to alleviate their concerns about having received a level of uncertainty from their actions. I get them them because I also got that shot!
thelean12 5y ago
> 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. Anything else is just the blind leading the blind and should be called out.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  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!

coding123 5y ago

By not stopping it will forever by 7 out of 7 million. By stopping they can at least find out if it's 5000 out of 7 million (and more deaths).

electrondood 5y ago
7 people got sick, not died.

Nacdor 5y ago

> The fact that modern society can be SO smart some times and yet so incredibly idiotic is so frustrating to me. The CDC and FDA both agree that use of the J&J vaccine should be paused so they can further study this previously unknown side effect. Maybe someone here could help you get in touch with them since you clearly know something they don't?

JediWing 5y ago

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 until further analysis is done.

moate 5y ago
6 Women aged 18-48.
mzs 5y ago
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. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-updated-information-about-risk-blood-clots-women-taking-birth-control https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-d... 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. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497120417847 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000649712...

HWR_14 5y ago

It's not the risk of clots. It's the risk of vaccine hesitancy because people fear a cover up. I think that's outweighed by the increased vaccine hesitancy because people only hear this scary story and not the low numbers (see also AstroZeneca).

spikels 5y ago
Unfortunately this "pause" will also result in vaccine hesitancy (on top of vaccination delays). We know this from the EU experience with the AstraZeneca vaccine which is now distrusted by many people. This will almost certainly now be a problem with the J&J vaccine in the US. More people will get sick and die because of this. https://www.politico.eu/article/trust-oxford-astrazeneca-coronavirus-vaccine-wanes-europe-survey https://www.politico.eu/article/trust-oxford-astrazeneca-cor...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AndrewBissell 5y ago

> oh and is 100% effective at stopping you from dying. Literally no one that has received the vaccine has died from COVID19. This is misinformation (and I call it that because it is being widely repeated in major new sources). It's an improper generalization from what was observed in a very small sample of confirmed Covid cases in the vaccine trials. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/11/3-breakthrough-covid-19-coronavirus-deaths-among-700000-fully-vaccinated-in-oregon/?sh=663191a4333f https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/04/11/3-breakthro...

lefrancaiz 5y ago
You're correct. NPR has reported some deaths in vaccinated people in this article. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/13/986411423/a-mystery-under-study-how-why-and-when-covid-vaccines-arent-fully-protective https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/13/9864114... >So far, more than 74 million people have gotten fully vaccinated in the United States. It's unclear how many have later gotten infected with the coronavirus anyway. But Michigan, Washington and other states have reported hundreds of cases. Most people have gotten only mildly ill, but some have gotten very sick. Some have even died.

Dumblydorr 5y ago

Modern society is not monolithic. It is a vast chaotic network, many nodes of which are surrounded by other nodes, all of which are misinformed.

sergiotapia 5y ago

Question for you, if you like those odds, why get the vaccine at all? If you're not obese covid won't do anything to you except give you a lil flu. Curious about your answer.

sdenton4 5y ago
1) Vaccination is also about stopping the overall spread of infections. Vaccination is for the greater good, not just your own good. 2) It's still very possible to have a Very Bad Time with covid if you're not obese.
- sergiotapia 5y ago
  >Vaccination is also about stopping the overall spread of infections. Then why are people still asked to wear masks in stores even if they are vaccinated? I've heard from the media non-stop that even if you have the vaccination you need to wear a mask - it doesn't make sense.
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    Because: a) it's not entirely whether vaccinated people can still be carriers. I think it's now /mostly/ clear that they don't. b) people are fscking awful. If you let vaccinated people not wear masks, you're going to have a bunch of philosophical zombies lying about their vaccination status to avoid wearing masks in public spaces. So, everybody wears masks until this thing is over and then some.

tomjen3 5y ago

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.

williesleg 5y ago

You've got those numbers wrong.

ryankemper 5y ago

> All these anti-vaxers talking about living in fear of a virus that has 98% survival rate Please cite a source here. Survival rate usually means IFR not CFR, and even the CDC's own number (the CDC is going to be incentivized to overstate risk) puts it at around a 99.4% general survival rate. Other estimates put it closer to 99.7% or even higher.