5 ms·

FDA restricts J&J’s Covid-19 vaccine due to blood clot risk

tamaharbor 4y ago
Conspiracy theory becomes truth yet again.
codefreeordie 4y ago
I seem to recall a time not very long ago when this vaccine was so safe and effective that suggesting otherwise got one unpersoned. I suppose it is time to cancel the FDA now for spreading anti-vaccine misinformation.
- hulitu 4y ago
  This is because this institutions, instead of doing their job, engage in "modern journalism" or in lobby for the farma industry. And then when the truth surfaces, their credibility plummets. Why it is so hard instead of saying "this vaccine is safe" to say " until now there are no reported effects" ?
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    It isn't hard to say something more true and less extreme, but the purpose of the enforcement of the "safe and effective" narrative across channels was about tribal signaling. The good tribe said "safe and effective" and everybody who disagreed was part of the bad tribe and needed to have bad things done to them. Basically the same reason shibboleths were invented to begin with.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  Reality being stupider than fiction, Twitter is now flagging tweets that link to the FDA's announced restriction of the J&J vaccine as "misinformation" because the vaccines are "safe and effective"
ttfkam 4y ago
> As of mid-March, federal scientists had identified 60 cases of the side effect, including nine that were fatal. That amounts to 3.23 blood clot cases per 1 million J&J shots. The problem is more common in women under 50, where the death rate was roughly 1 per million shots, according to Marks. Now let's compare to hydroxychloroquine and other "alternatives". Let's also compare to the 99% survival rate of Covid folks keep harping on about. 99% survival rate is nowhere near better than 1 per million. And that's assuming you are a woman under 50. And that's assuming you took the J&J vaccine instead of the mRNA variants. 60 is too many, but with 1M dead in the US alone (mostly unvaccinated), perspective is important.
- version_five 4y ago
  I agree with your point that rare side effects is not a reason not to encourage vaccination. Basically all medications (whether causally or statistically) end up with potential side effects, and it's not a reason to reject modern medicine, it's always a probabilistic exercise. I also think public health messaging should focus on the net benefit and not get caught up in rare side effects. Where I think we disagree, and what I believe is the problem is that once we get into compelled vaccination (which whatever mental gymnastics people play, we have in most places), you take away people's autonomy to accept a treatment for themselves, and so suddenly even the rarest side effects become the government's fault and a big deal in the eyes of many. Most will voluntarily undertake much riskier things, but force them to do it, and surprisingly people get upset that there are potential rare side effects. Couple that with the fact that the vaccine doesn't really do anything against current covid strains, ("prevents severe infection" doesn't really clear any bar) and it makes more sense that even very rare stuff ends up being intolerable
  - TrispusAttucks 4y ago
    Agreed. The fundamental problem is a violation of liberty. Once liberty is violated the responsibility for outcome is removed from the person and placed on the authority.
- proc0 4y ago
  The numbers look very different for healthy young people yet the distinction has never been taken into account for any lockdown or vaccination policy in the U.S. Anytime these numbers are brought up, it's as if this disease is exactly the same for everyone, but the evidence clearly points otherwise. Imagine just as many children dying as 70+ year olds with co-morbidities, that would have been magnitudes much worse. The survivability rate is usually something to point out for younger healthy people, who are pushed to reduce their risks by thousands of a percentage at the risk of suffering complications from something that apparently (i.e. this post) we still don't know everything about.

Conspiracy theory becomes truth yet again.

I seem to recall a time not very long ago when this vaccine was so safe and effective that suggesting otherwise got one unpersoned. I suppose it is time to cancel the FDA now for spreading anti-vaccine misinformation.

hulitu 4y ago
This is because this institutions, instead of doing their job, engage in "modern journalism" or in lobby for the farma industry. And then when the truth surfaces, their credibility plummets. Why it is so hard instead of saying "this vaccine is safe" to say " until now there are no reported effects" ?
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  It isn't hard to say something more true and less extreme, but the purpose of the enforcement of the "safe and effective" narrative across channels was about tribal signaling. The good tribe said "safe and effective" and everybody who disagreed was part of the bad tribe and needed to have bad things done to them. Basically the same reason shibboleths were invented to begin with.
codefreeordie 4y ago
Reality being stupider than fiction, Twitter is now flagging tweets that link to the FDA's announced restriction of the J&J vaccine as "misinformation" because the vaccines are "safe and effective"

ttfkam 4y ago

> As of mid-March, federal scientists had identified 60 cases of the side effect, including nine that were fatal. That amounts to 3.23 blood clot cases per 1 million J&J shots. The problem is more common in women under 50, where the death rate was roughly 1 per million shots, according to Marks. Now let's compare to hydroxychloroquine and other "alternatives". Let's also compare to the 99% survival rate of Covid folks keep harping on about. 99% survival rate is nowhere near better than 1 per million. And that's assuming you are a woman under 50. And that's assuming you took the J&J vaccine instead of the mRNA variants. 60 is too many, but with 1M dead in the US alone (mostly unvaccinated), perspective is important.

version_five 4y ago
I agree with your point that rare side effects is not a reason not to encourage vaccination. Basically all medications (whether causally or statistically) end up with potential side effects, and it's not a reason to reject modern medicine, it's always a probabilistic exercise. I also think public health messaging should focus on the net benefit and not get caught up in rare side effects. Where I think we disagree, and what I believe is the problem is that once we get into compelled vaccination (which whatever mental gymnastics people play, we have in most places), you take away people's autonomy to accept a treatment for themselves, and so suddenly even the rarest side effects become the government's fault and a big deal in the eyes of many. Most will voluntarily undertake much riskier things, but force them to do it, and surprisingly people get upset that there are potential rare side effects. Couple that with the fact that the vaccine doesn't really do anything against current covid strains, ("prevents severe infection" doesn't really clear any bar) and it makes more sense that even very rare stuff ends up being intolerable
- TrispusAttucks 4y ago
  Agreed. The fundamental problem is a violation of liberty. Once liberty is violated the responsibility for outcome is removed from the person and placed on the authority.
proc0 4y ago
The numbers look very different for healthy young people yet the distinction has never been taken into account for any lockdown or vaccination policy in the U.S. Anytime these numbers are brought up, it's as if this disease is exactly the same for everyone, but the evidence clearly points otherwise. Imagine just as many children dying as 70+ year olds with co-morbidities, that would have been magnitudes much worse. The survivability rate is usually something to point out for younger healthy people, who are pushed to reduce their risks by thousands of a percentage at the risk of suffering complications from something that apparently (i.e. this post) we still don't know everything about.