4 ms·

Just makes sense. The benefits far outweigh the risks at six cases of blood clots out of over 6.8 million doses, especially when there's a high risk of blood cl

by sjm 5y ago

Just makes sense. The benefits far outweigh the risks at six cases of blood clots out of over 6.8 million doses, especially when there's a high risk of blood clots following COVID-19 hospitalization. Not to mention rates of blood clots caused by the pill are more like 1 in 3000. Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously.

Sebguer 5y ago
>Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously. The vast majority of skeptics will not be convinced by this, because their skepticism is not rooted in the science.
- passivate 5y ago
  I think it should fall under basic common sense, not science. In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. This group varies based on the drug in question. The rest of us are just parroting them. Yes you can try to be informed and read-up but at the end of the day they're still a layperson. I work in biotech (vaccines), and outside of my little niche, I'm just your average lay person, just slightly more informed.
  - benchaney 5y ago
    > In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. That is not science, and it is not what is meant when people talk about trusting the science. Science is empiricism. The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. The science supporting safety is similar. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. That level of knowledge is somewhat rare, but nowhere near as uncommon as the theoretical knowledge you are describing.
    - passivate 5y ago
      We're not really in disagreement. Let me explain a bit more. Science is a process/methodology of exploring/understanding our natural world/natural phenomenon, Yes? And as such, there is good science, there is average science, and there is junk science. They're all under the same 'Science' umbrella. >The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes you have a bunch of numbers, but this doesn't tell you whether the study protocol was good, nor does it tell you about the qualitative aspects like how well the study protocol was adhered to, how tight the controls were, etc. Naturally, this is not a new problem, and we have various safeguards already in place at various levels. You also need a third party like say the FDA to audit and examine what was done. >This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes, but that is not all. People need to understand how clinical trials are conducted, and how for e.g. efficacy numbers can't simply be used to trivially compare two vaccine candidates.
- tldrthelaw 5y ago
  Not targeting you on this, just an observation: we should be careful with the terms we use. I don't think "skeptic" or "skepticism" applies to anti-vaxxers.
  - Sebguer 5y ago
    I guess you can tell the AP to stop using it? https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-white-evangelicals-us-32898166bbb673ad87842af24c8daefb https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-wh...
    - tldrthelaw 5y ago
      Sure, if you want me to. Unless you're implying that since the AP makes use of it in this way (and/or its in their Stylebook) there can be no valid contradictory position? They didn't permit a singular use of "they" until like 2017. Sometimes they get stuff wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
barbazoo 5y ago
I agree with you that the risk of getting Covid-19 far outweigh the risk of blood clots associated with some vaccines, however, I've read this comparison with birth control related blood clots many times and it just doesn't seem to be comparable. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-comparing-blood-clot-risks-from-covid-19-vaccines-and-birth-control-pills-doesnt-work-11618601237 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-comparing-blood-clot-r... > Indeed, government health officials are investigating a type of blood clot called a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) among the J&J recipients. These clots formed in the draining veins of the brain, combined with a low platelet count, essentially causing a stroke. Hormonal birth control pills, on the other hand, raise the risk of blood clots in the leg that can break off and travel to the lung, causing a pulmonary embolism that blocks blood flow to part of the lung. The latter clots can be treated with anticoagulants, while the J&J clots cannot. One seems to be far more deadly than the other.
- passivate 5y ago
  There is the potential for (rare) harmful side-effects from taking many pharmaceuticals. Its all the stuff that they speak at 2x speed after the ad. People (especially the media) are understandably hyper-focused on COVID.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Correct! I've been pointing this out, also. I found this article [0], referencing the J&J FDA trails where they saw a 50% increase in blood clots in the vaccinated group, which was not considered statistically significant at the time (20k people, 15 blood clots in vaccinated group versus 10 in the placebo group). These were not the exceptionally dangerous cerebral venous sinus thrombosis blood clots. I don't know if we'll get better numbers on other types of J&J blood clots from the CDC at some point, but I've noticed the same as you that people are comparing J&J cerebral blood clot deaths to birth control clots of any type and that doesn't look like a fair comparison to me, either. [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-...
sp332 5y ago
It was 6 cases when the pause was announced, but it's up to 15 cases (plus one that J&J went back and found in the phase III data) now that we've had an extra week for cases to develop and reports to come in. I expect that cases will continue to happen, but hopefully patients and doctors will be more prepared to deal with it.
void_mint 5y ago
> Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously. The anti vaxx community is uninterested in science. This won't change anything.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  As ever, the thoroughly anti-vax community are going to be unconvinceable, but there is real progress to be made on the margins. There are a large number of people who are not inherently opposed to vaccination who are hesitant (for a wide variety of reasons) to take this vaccine. I know people who have gone from "The US government has a long history of medical experimentation on people with my skin tone" to vaccination evangelists over the last few months. This isn't yet quite one of those issues where people are locked in to a narrow bimodal distribution.
  - void_mint 5y ago
    It may be splitting hairs, but I wouldn't really call most vaccine skeptics "anti vaxxers". The legitimate "anti vaxx" community are legitimately uninterested in science. These people will never get vaccinated, regardless of data. A much larger group of people is skeptical of the government and vaccines. These people might get vaccinated, and every piece of information that comes out in favor of vaccination has the possibility to sway some of them. My post was about the first group, not the second.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  Pause or not pause. Anti-vaxx will never be convinced. In whatever way, they will come up with new excuses. I care about whether the vaccine is safe. I would be seriously concern if officials take anti-vaxx into consideration.
miked85 5y ago
I am not sure it is about "anti-vax" folks so much in this case. Many are wary of getting a vaccine with < year of testing, not to mention relatively new technology (mRNA). That isn't entirely unreasonable, though I did end up getting the Moderna shot.
- dawnerd 5y ago
  JnJ isn’t mRNA just in case that’s what you were implying.
  - miked85 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to imply that.
- GrifMD 5y ago
  That’s fair, but I’d prefer to get the vaccine over something developed by bats https://xkcd.com/2397/ https://xkcd.com/2397/
  - marvin 5y ago
    That's an entertining soundbite, but other health complications nonwithstanding, the risk of dying from Covid for a healthy 25-year old is approximately 1:500,000. It's an individual decision, and although there are many factors both individual and societal, it's counterproductive to yell (or jokingly imply, as Munroe did in your link) "antivaxxer!!" whenever someone has some concern. Many European health authorities have e.g. concluded that the risk of death from the AstraZeneca vaccine is greater than the risk of Covid infection in young people. Unless one assumes that these health authorities are wrong, this would indeed be an example where a time-limited amount of caution wasn't obviously irrational. Was it a black swan event that one of the ~7 vaccines that passed clinical trials turned out to fail the risk/benefit ratio in some regions? No, that's probably to be expected with the probabilities involved. We can still have confidence both in vaccines and health authorities after such an event, my point is that saying "you're stupid" in intellectual-ese is rarely the most productive response. Not everyone who has some concern is a rabid conspiracy theorist.

by sjm 5y ago

Sebguer 5y ago

>Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously. The vast majority of skeptics will not be convinced by this, because their skepticism is not rooted in the science.

passivate 5y ago
I think it should fall under basic common sense, not science. In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. This group varies based on the drug in question. The rest of us are just parroting them. Yes you can try to be informed and read-up but at the end of the day they're still a layperson. I work in biotech (vaccines), and outside of my little niche, I'm just your average lay person, just slightly more informed.
- benchaney 5y ago
  > In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. That is not science, and it is not what is meant when people talk about trusting the science. Science is empiricism. The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. The science supporting safety is similar. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. That level of knowledge is somewhat rare, but nowhere near as uncommon as the theoretical knowledge you are describing.
  - passivate 5y ago
    We're not really in disagreement. Let me explain a bit more. Science is a process/methodology of exploring/understanding our natural world/natural phenomenon, Yes? And as such, there is good science, there is average science, and there is junk science. They're all under the same 'Science' umbrella. >The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes you have a bunch of numbers, but this doesn't tell you whether the study protocol was good, nor does it tell you about the qualitative aspects like how well the study protocol was adhered to, how tight the controls were, etc. Naturally, this is not a new problem, and we have various safeguards already in place at various levels. You also need a third party like say the FDA to audit and examine what was done. >This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes, but that is not all. People need to understand how clinical trials are conducted, and how for e.g. efficacy numbers can't simply be used to trivially compare two vaccine candidates.
tldrthelaw 5y ago
Not targeting you on this, just an observation: we should be careful with the terms we use. I don't think "skeptic" or "skepticism" applies to anti-vaxxers.
- Sebguer 5y ago
  I guess you can tell the AP to stop using it? https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-white-evangelicals-us-32898166bbb673ad87842af24c8daefb https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-wh...
  - tldrthelaw 5y ago
    Sure, if you want me to. Unless you're implying that since the AP makes use of it in this way (and/or its in their Stylebook) there can be no valid contradictory position? They didn't permit a singular use of "they" until like 2017. Sometimes they get stuff wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

barbazoo 5y ago

I agree with you that the risk of getting Covid-19 far outweigh the risk of blood clots associated with some vaccines, however, I've read this comparison with birth control related blood clots many times and it just doesn't seem to be comparable. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-comparing-blood-clot-risks-from-covid-19-vaccines-and-birth-control-pills-doesnt-work-11618601237 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-comparing-blood-clot-r... > Indeed, government health officials are investigating a type of blood clot called a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) among the J&J recipients. These clots formed in the draining veins of the brain, combined with a low platelet count, essentially causing a stroke. Hormonal birth control pills, on the other hand, raise the risk of blood clots in the leg that can break off and travel to the lung, causing a pulmonary embolism that blocks blood flow to part of the lung. The latter clots can be treated with anticoagulants, while the J&J clots cannot. One seems to be far more deadly than the other.

passivate 5y ago
There is the potential for (rare) harmful side-effects from taking many pharmaceuticals. Its all the stuff that they speak at 2x speed after the ad. People (especially the media) are understandably hyper-focused on COVID.
mikem170 5y ago
Correct! I've been pointing this out, also. I found this article [0], referencing the J&J FDA trails where they saw a 50% increase in blood clots in the vaccinated group, which was not considered statistically significant at the time (20k people, 15 blood clots in vaccinated group versus 10 in the placebo group). These were not the exceptionally dangerous cerebral venous sinus thrombosis blood clots. I don't know if we'll get better numbers on other types of J&J blood clots from the CDC at some point, but I've noticed the same as you that people are comparing J&J cerebral blood clot deaths to birth control clots of any type and that doesn't look like a fair comparison to me, either. [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-...

sp332 5y ago

It was 6 cases when the pause was announced, but it's up to 15 cases (plus one that J&J went back and found in the phase III data) now that we've had an extra week for cases to develop and reports to come in. I expect that cases will continue to happen, but hopefully patients and doctors will be more prepared to deal with it.

void_mint 5y ago

> Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously. The anti vaxx community is uninterested in science. This won't change anything.

InitialLastName 5y ago
As ever, the thoroughly anti-vax community are going to be unconvinceable, but there is real progress to be made on the margins. There are a large number of people who are not inherently opposed to vaccination who are hesitant (for a wide variety of reasons) to take this vaccine. I know people who have gone from "The US government has a long history of medical experimentation on people with my skin tone" to vaccination evangelists over the last few months. This isn't yet quite one of those issues where people are locked in to a narrow bimodal distribution.
- void_mint 5y ago
  It may be splitting hairs, but I wouldn't really call most vaccine skeptics "anti vaxxers". The legitimate "anti vaxx" community are legitimately uninterested in science. These people will never get vaccinated, regardless of data. A much larger group of people is skeptical of the government and vaccines. These people might get vaccinated, and every piece of information that comes out in favor of vaccination has the possibility to sway some of them. My post was about the first group, not the second.
ergocoder 5y ago
Pause or not pause. Anti-vaxx will never be convinced. In whatever way, they will come up with new excuses. I care about whether the vaccine is safe. I would be seriously concern if officials take anti-vaxx into consideration.

miked85 5y ago

I am not sure it is about "anti-vax" folks so much in this case. Many are wary of getting a vaccine with < year of testing, not to mention relatively new technology (mRNA). That isn't entirely unreasonable, though I did end up getting the Moderna shot.

dawnerd 5y ago
JnJ isn’t mRNA just in case that’s what you were implying.
- miked85 5y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to imply that.
GrifMD 5y ago
That’s fair, but I’d prefer to get the vaccine over something developed by bats https://xkcd.com/2397/ https://xkcd.com/2397/
- marvin 5y ago
  That's an entertining soundbite, but other health complications nonwithstanding, the risk of dying from Covid for a healthy 25-year old is approximately 1:500,000. It's an individual decision, and although there are many factors both individual and societal, it's counterproductive to yell (or jokingly imply, as Munroe did in your link) "antivaxxer!!" whenever someone has some concern. Many European health authorities have e.g. concluded that the risk of death from the AstraZeneca vaccine is greater than the risk of Covid infection in young people. Unless one assumes that these health authorities are wrong, this would indeed be an example where a time-limited amount of caution wasn't obviously irrational. Was it a black swan event that one of the ~7 vaccines that passed clinical trials turned out to fail the risk/benefit ratio in some regions? No, that's probably to be expected with the probabilities involved. We can still have confidence both in vaccines and health authorities after such an event, my point is that saying "you're stupid" in intellectual-ese is rarely the most productive response. Not everyone who has some concern is a rabid conspiracy theorist.