6 ms·

> We’ve got one vaccine that’s been blacklisted due to high prevalence of blood clots. The risk of getting a blood clot from the J&J vaccine is 400,000:1. This

> We’ve got one vaccine that’s been blacklisted due to high prevalence of blood clots. The risk of getting a blood clot from the J&J vaccine is 400,000:1. This is less likely than dying of COVID in any age category. 0.00025%. The risk of dying in a car accident in America is 0.01% every year. So you're 40X more likely to die in a car accident this year alone than get a serious blood clot from the J&J vaccine. The risk of being injured in a car accident in America is 1.15% every year. So you're 6000X more likely to be injured in a car accident this year than get a serious blood clot from the J&J vaccine. Nothing in life is risk-free. This is pretty close though.

stalkersyndrome 5y ago
Yeah you’re putting your faith in a company whose talcum powder has been causing cancer for decades and saying “it doesn’t kill you it’s not that bad” It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement. “Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Yeah you’re putting your faith in a company whose talcum powder has been causing cancer for decades and saying “it doesn’t kill you it’s not that bad” No, I'm putting my faith in the CDC and VAERS, and an incredibly twitchy public willing to report absolutely anything and everything, in no small part because folks like you freak them out. > It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement. Yeah, it's been administered billions of times. Most "experimental" vaccines are given to around 1000 people total. This is like aspartame now - one of the most studied vaccines on earth. > “Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure. This could not be less relevant. Just wait until you learn what Bayer did during WWII as part of IG Farben. I'm pretty sure they had a Nuremberg trial about it. And yet we still take Aspirin. I suggest you stick to one thing at a time.
  - stalkersyndrome 5y ago
    CDC is a political vehicle. It’s a tragedy what’s happened over the last year as they flip flop. VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects. Look, stick to the basics. If you’re going to appeal to authority find one with some backbone and preferably one with less profit motive. CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did. Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know. You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case. So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin. Everyone should question the competency and “trust us we know” attitudes of these companies. They’re the kind of people you only want to deal with when you absolutely have no choice.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > CDC is a political vehicle. It’s a tragedy what’s happened over the last year as they flip flop. The CDC is an apolitical vehicle broadly speaking. It's not perfect, and it has become more politicized over time, sure. It's a sign of their doing their job to adjust their position in the face of a rapidly changing landscape. It's also their job to be pretty conservative. > VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects. VAERS has always been there to track Reports of Vaccine Adverse Events. It's by the way an HHS system, not CDC. Do you have any articles to back your assertions? I'm of course open to reading them. > CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did. As is tradition. > Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know. The vaccine platforms are decades old and well studied, we know broadly what they do, so we can project their effects. > You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case. Would you not say it's fair that they incurred liability over the talcum powder, but the government waived their liability over any vaccine adverse effects and so they would have far less interest in covering it up? > So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin. You... won't take aspirin because of the Nazis? My dude (or m'lady, as appropriate), I'm Polish and I'm over it. lol.
velcii 5y ago
> https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-21.asp https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-21.asp This is based on voluntary reporting, which is known to have under reporting where even 10% events are not reported. Even then the risk is a serious AEFI is 1 in 5095.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  VAERS reports are also correlative not causative, if you dig in, you can actually whittle down the reports pretty significantly. I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI. I don't know enough about the NZ governments methodology to comment on your source.
  - velcii 5y ago
    >I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI. Most people are concerned about having any sort of serious AEFI, and not just blood-clots. So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion. Hm, I was addressing the parent's specific point about blood clots rather than safety in general. I agree with you broadly, however. Worth calling out my wording. Thanks!
lurquer 5y ago
> This is less likely than dying of COVID in any age category. 0.00025%. Is this not apples and oranges? The odds of a Covid patient dying from Covid is higher, is it not, than the odds of a person dying from Covid? That is, one must take into account the chances of catching Covid in the first place. If there is a nasty disease with 10% mortality, and a vaccine with only a 0.001% chance of mortality, there would not be sufficient information to decide whether to take the vaccine... instead, you would also need to know your chances of catching the nasty disease in the first place over some period of time.
noobly 5y ago
Speaking strictly about mRNA vaccines, the risk is not yet well-defined, since it's a new tech, so doing a quantitative comparison at this point doesn't seem right. Additionally, the methods of data collection between vaccine and COVID risk haven't followed the same standards, making an apples to apples quantitative comparison difficult. The risk of the vaccine is an open question that's being answered over time (consider things like ADE that caused mRNA vaccines to be put on hold prior to the pandemic). On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses. We also have to consider vaccine effectiveness; is it robust to variants? over what timeline is it effective? does it reduce transmission? etc. If it is less effective in any of these categories, the risk:reward grows larger, and not taking it begins to make more and more sense. Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > ... Speaking strictly about mRNA vaccines, the risk is not yet well-defined. > ... On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses. So, to be clear, you're saying that 2 years of observational data on COVID is conclusive because COVID is very similar to other viruses (SARS, MERS) which we have on decades of observational data on. And yet you're saying that almost a year of observational data on COVID vaccines, over 3 billion doses delivered, is inconclusive even though it's also based on decades of study of similar vaccines. Vaccines developed using the same platform - both mRNA and viral vector vaccines are decades old. And in some cases, the studied vaccines were developed for SARS - the same virus you credit towards understanding of COVID. Should credit not also go towards understanding of the vaccines? Is this not inconsistent? At this point the COVID vaccine has been studied, trialed and monitored more than probably anything else you've ever interacted with in your daily life. Most vaccine trials are run with one thousand people, not three billion. > Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any. There's a very high chance you will catch it unless you mask and vax. Even then there's a pretty high chance. You have no reason to believe you have natural immunity - you almost certainly do not. This is at best wishful thinking. You're exposing yourself to more risk through inaction. But worse, you're putting your friends and family who cannot get the vaccine for actual reasons instead of gut feeling at risk.

stalkersyndrome 5y ago

Yeah you’re putting your faith in a company whose talcum powder has been causing cancer for decades and saying “it doesn’t kill you it’s not that bad” It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement. “Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Yeah you’re putting your faith in a company whose talcum powder has been causing cancer for decades and saying “it doesn’t kill you it’s not that bad” No, I'm putting my faith in the CDC and VAERS, and an incredibly twitchy public willing to report absolutely anything and everything, in no small part because folks like you freak them out. > It’s an experimental vaccine that hasn’t even been out for a year mate. Use some better judgement. Yeah, it's been administered billions of times. Most "experimental" vaccines are given to around 1000 people total. This is like aspartame now - one of the most studied vaccines on earth. > “Oh but it prevents covid” - yeah and that powder helped with the rash too I’m sure. This could not be less relevant. Just wait until you learn what Bayer did during WWII as part of IG Farben. I'm pretty sure they had a Nuremberg trial about it. And yet we still take Aspirin. I suggest you stick to one thing at a time.
- stalkersyndrome 5y ago
  CDC is a political vehicle. It’s a tragedy what’s happened over the last year as they flip flop. VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects. Look, stick to the basics. If you’re going to appeal to authority find one with some backbone and preferably one with less profit motive. CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did. Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know. You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case. So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin. Everyone should question the competency and “trust us we know” attitudes of these companies. They’re the kind of people you only want to deal with when you absolutely have no choice.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > CDC is a political vehicle. It’s a tragedy what’s happened over the last year as they flip flop. The CDC is an apolitical vehicle broadly speaking. It's not perfect, and it has become more politicized over time, sure. It's a sign of their doing their job to adjust their position in the face of a rapidly changing landscape. It's also their job to be pretty conservative. > VAERS and it’s predecessors did not track this kind of thing even though they were explicitly made with the intention to. Their own workforce was puzzled as to why they weren’t deployed early on to track vaccine side effects. VAERS has always been there to track Reports of Vaccine Adverse Events. It's by the way an HHS system, not CDC. Do you have any articles to back your assertions? I'm of course open to reading them. > CDC didn’t make the vaccine. J&J did. As is tradition. > Neither knows what it will do over the next N years, and even if they did you’d be the last to know. The vaccine platforms are decades old and well studied, we know broadly what they do, so we can project their effects. > You’ve got all the evidence you need in how J&J handled the powder case. Would you not say it's fair that they incurred liability over the talcum powder, but the government waived their liability over any vaccine adverse effects and so they would have far less interest in covering it up? > So no, I’m not taking the vaccine or the aspirin. You... won't take aspirin because of the Nazis? My dude (or m'lady, as appropriate), I'm Polish and I'm over it. lol.

velcii 5y ago

> https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-21.asp https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-21.asp This is based on voluntary reporting, which is known to have under reporting where even 10% events are not reported. Even then the risk is a serious AEFI is 1 in 5095.

arcticbull 5y ago
VAERS reports are also correlative not causative, if you dig in, you can actually whittle down the reports pretty significantly. I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI. I don't know enough about the NZ governments methodology to comment on your source.
- velcii 5y ago
  >I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI. Most people are concerned about having any sort of serious AEFI, and not just blood-clots. So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion. Hm, I was addressing the parent's specific point about blood clots rather than safety in general. I agree with you broadly, however. Worth calling out my wording. Thanks!

lurquer 5y ago

> This is less likely than dying of COVID in any age category. 0.00025%. Is this not apples and oranges? The odds of a Covid patient dying from Covid is higher, is it not, than the odds of a person dying from Covid? That is, one must take into account the chances of catching Covid in the first place. If there is a nasty disease with 10% mortality, and a vaccine with only a 0.001% chance of mortality, there would not be sufficient information to decide whether to take the vaccine... instead, you would also need to know your chances of catching the nasty disease in the first place over some period of time.

noobly 5y ago

Speaking strictly about mRNA vaccines, the risk is not yet well-defined, since it's a new tech, so doing a quantitative comparison at this point doesn't seem right. Additionally, the methods of data collection between vaccine and COVID risk haven't followed the same standards, making an apples to apples quantitative comparison difficult. The risk of the vaccine is an open question that's being answered over time (consider things like ADE that caused mRNA vaccines to be put on hold prior to the pandemic). On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses. We also have to consider vaccine effectiveness; is it robust to variants? over what timeline is it effective? does it reduce transmission? etc. If it is less effective in any of these categories, the risk:reward grows larger, and not taking it begins to make more and more sense. Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.

arcticbull 5y ago
> ... Speaking strictly about mRNA vaccines, the risk is not yet well-defined. > ... On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses. So, to be clear, you're saying that 2 years of observational data on COVID is conclusive because COVID is very similar to other viruses (SARS, MERS) which we have on decades of observational data on. And yet you're saying that almost a year of observational data on COVID vaccines, over 3 billion doses delivered, is inconclusive even though it's also based on decades of study of similar vaccines. Vaccines developed using the same platform - both mRNA and viral vector vaccines are decades old. And in some cases, the studied vaccines were developed for SARS - the same virus you credit towards understanding of COVID. Should credit not also go towards understanding of the vaccines? Is this not inconsistent? At this point the COVID vaccine has been studied, trialed and monitored more than probably anything else you've ever interacted with in your daily life. Most vaccine trials are run with one thousand people, not three billion. > Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any. There's a very high chance you will catch it unless you mask and vax. Even then there's a pretty high chance. You have no reason to believe you have natural immunity - you almost certainly do not. This is at best wishful thinking. You're exposing yourself to more risk through inaction. But worse, you're putting your friends and family who cannot get the vaccine for actual reasons instead of gut feeling at risk.