CDC Panel Recommends Moderna, Pfizer Vaccines Over J&J's (reuters.com) 139
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A panel of outside advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday voted to recommend Americans choose to receive one of the other two authorized COVID-19 vaccines over Johnson & Johnson's shot, due to rare but sometimes fatal cases of blood clotting. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization voted unanimously to make the recommendation in favor of the vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech over the J&J shot. The regulator still needs to sign off on the guidance.
Fewer Americans have received the J&J shot than the other two vaccines by a significant margin. Out of more than 200 million fully vaccinated people in the United States, around 16 million received J&J's vaccine, according to CDC data. [...] Members of the panel also said J&J's vaccine is less effective in preventing COVID-19 than the other two authorized vaccines. In a presentation to the committee, a leading J&J vaccine scientist said the vaccine generates a strong and long-lasting immune response with just a single shot.
Fewer Americans have received the J&J shot than the other two vaccines by a significant margin. Out of more than 200 million fully vaccinated people in the United States, around 16 million received J&J's vaccine, according to CDC data. [...] Members of the panel also said J&J's vaccine is less effective in preventing COVID-19 than the other two authorized vaccines. In a presentation to the committee, a leading J&J vaccine scientist said the vaccine generates a strong and long-lasting immune response with just a single shot.
Just got Moderna leveled up yesterday (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot. The answer is bound to be at least one of them.
Caused by interaction with something else? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, fifty something deaths out of the millions of doses given doesn't really sound like something that calls for much concern.
Re:Caused by interaction with something else? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Caused by interaction with something else? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed.
a) Really low numbers, too low for actual concern. 50 of 16M is 0.000'031%
Just as a comparison, the fatality rate for driving a car in the US is around 1 in 100M vehicle miles. So driving 300 Miles is about as deadly as getting the J&J shot.
If you assume about 10% are young women in the risky age range, for them it is still less than the risk of dying while driving 3000 Miles.
b) Hard to find out what is actually happening as the numbers ar
Really low numbers (Score:2, Insightful)
Really low numbers
This is what the conservatives have been saying about the pandemic in general. A three or even four percent fatality rate wasn't enough to justify the lockdowns and mask mandates, but perhaps enough to mandate isolation of the vulnerable population.
Yes, there are portions of the population with higher risk factors, but accommodating those people by allowing them to quarantine/work from home, etc... would have had far less impact on the rest of the population than insisting that every
Re:Really low numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Really low numbers
This is what the conservatives have been saying about the pandemic in general.
And yet, they are wrong.
A three or even four percent fatality rate wasn't enough to justify the lockdowns and mask mandates, but perhaps enough to mandate isolation of the vulnerable population.
We already know that doesn't work, because you can't isolate them well enough given the transmission rates.
Yes, there are portions of the population with higher risk factors, but accommodating those people by allowing them to quarantine/work from home, etc... would have had far less impact on the rest of the population than insisting that everyone perform these measures, which in retrospect had only the smallest effect on the pandemic
Actually, they had a rather huge effect, because they have reduced the time hospitals spent overtaxed and not only unable to handle the influx of covid hospitalizations but also unable to handle any OTHER health care while this has been going on. Tons of "elective" but ultimately necessary (lest they progress, or cause other problems) procedures have had to be postponed indefinitely because of covid hospitalizations.
If we had unlimited hospital capacity then it might be reasonable to just let covid run its course, but since we don't, it definitely isn't.
but created rather serious financial and mental health issues for those involved.
You know what else does that? When hospitals don't have any free capacity. When corpses are being stacked up like cordwood and stored in refrigerated trucks because the morgue system can't handle the load, and would-be patients are being told they have to die because there's no facilities to care for them.
Re:Really low numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
And in the here and now, there's a very easy solution for the hospital capacity: triage.
If the hospital is at capacity and a cancer patient needs a round of chemo, an old person needs a new hip, or someone stumbles into the ER with a stubbed toe, and there are anti-vaxxers taking up space; roll one of them out, kick them to the curb, and give the space to someone who gives at least the smallest damn about his own health.
We keep hearing that COVID is now "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" or delta is "a surge of the unvaccinated" and "the only way to get through this is for everyone to be vaccinated." Well, that is not going to happen. The anti-vaxxers have never been reasonable or rational, even when it was just measles they were trying to bring back. And there's no excuse for them. They... we... have all had since April to do the sane and responsible thing and get our damn shots. There needs to be an endgame now where those of us who've been vaccinated move on, take back our normal lives, and leave the unvaccinated behind.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how triage works. Triage is applied at the beginning of care. If you're already taking up an ICU bed, they can not kick you out of that bed.
Re: (Score:2)
However satisfying that would be, it cannot be done unless you want your country to burn. In civilized countries (and the US qualifies, even if barely), removing somebody from an ICU bed they need to survive is called "murder". There are some rare exceptions for hopeless cases, but that is basically it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was that the lockdowns didn't actually flatten the curve enough. I know former cancer patients who could have been treated except they lived in a lockdown state, their hospitals filled up, and they died because they couldn't receive treatment.
It's hard to make the case that lockdowns save lives when we've all seen people die because of them. I have been made aware by more than one physician that mental health affects physical health, and poor mental health can compromise a person's immune s
Re: (Score:3)
That's because they 1) don't grasp that death is not the only bad outcome, and 2) can't grasp that "isolating the vulnerable" as they describe isn't possible. When it's spreading that far and wide, the vulnerable will get it unless you seal them in biosafety level 4 labs.
But it does fit nicely with their belief that money is way more important than lives.
You are describing the "Sweden model", which failed so badly Sweden itself abandoned it after a few months.
which in retrospect had only the smallest effect on the pandemic
[Citation Required]
Also, you know what has had
Long covid is no joke (Score:2)
I think some pretty stringent measures are important to not only save the 1% who will die (where'd you get 3 or 4 percent?), but to save a substantial 30%-ish minority of everyone else from long term damage.
I have friends who have lost their sense of smell. Some apparently permanently. "Covid brain" is no joke either. Are you so smart that you can afford to functionally lose 10-20 IQ points? And then there is the chronic fatigue, the blood clots, from COVID, all quite a lot more common than the limited
Re: (Score:2)
not every nation is as selfish. Portugal, for example, has a 89% vaccination rate (two doses or more) (according to our world in data as of today), compared to 61% in the USA. And the USA started vaccinating kids 5-11 years old before.
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of us who *are* vaccinated are fed up and done with the bullshit though. There is no more reason or excuse for anyone... except for a vanishingly small minority who have allergies or autoimmune disorders that legitimately preclude vaccination... to have, catch, or suffer in any way from COVID. And that's been the case since April. Yeah... masks and isolation and travel resrictions made sense... last year and for the first half of this year. Now? Anyone with COVID has it because they chose to get
Re: (Score:2)
And you know what had a higher death rate than either COVID or polio? AIDS. But because AIDS affected mostly gay people; there were no masks, or isolations, or lockdowns, no travel restrictions,
You know what isn't transmitted through the air? AIDS.
It's almost like different viruses need different mitigation strategies.
Re: (Score:2)
But because AIDS affected mostly gay people; there were no masks
I'm curious to hear how you believe AIDS is transmitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so smart that you can afford to functionally lose 10-20 IQ points?
The anti-vaccine mob is clearly a ploy by Republicans to swell their ranks.
Sorry, couldn't resist the easy joke...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really low numbers
This is what the conservatives have been saying about the pandemic in general. A three or even four percent fatality rate wasn't enough to justify the lockdowns and mask mandates, but perhaps enough to mandate isolation of the vulnerable population.
Even a 0.4-0.8 percent fatality rate (what is actually happening) is in no way "really low numbers". It is pretty high.
No idea what you are trying to insinuate here.
Cue the Amateurs! (Score:3)
It will be interesting to see how the amateur infectious disease "researchers" respond to this.
Re:Cue the Amateurs! (Score:4, Funny)
Taking the holy trinity of zinc, vitamin D, and apple flavored ivermectin.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No that would be Cajun. Damn some jambalaya would be good today.
Re:An apple a day (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With such a low uid, I would expect better out of you. Sure ivermectin is questionable, but there is no doubt that you should be taking zinc and vitamin D (and I will also add NAC for any respiratory illness) when you are sick with any illness.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ivermectin probably does help hicks to survive the covid better, as worms do make your immune system weaker, but quite obviously will not help you not getting the thing or not spreading it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to demonstrate just how dumb you are, think that "lefties" give a damn about your efforts to annoy them.
Re: (Score:2)
Clear to me: They will claim that J&J is somehow better. No problem, more superior vaccine for the rest of us.
Wasn't it always seen as worse? (Score:3)
Wasn't the J&J vaccine always considered worse than mRNA or even the AZ vaccine? I don't even think we used it up here in Canada. From what I heard it was really only recommended for situations where tracking people down for a second shot might be difficult such as in homeless populations. I'm aware that other people got it, but it always seemed like the least good option.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like Canada finally got a couple shots (only 20k) https://www.canada.ca/en/publi... [canada.ca]
This is out of a firm order of 10 million doses, with options to go up to 38 millions. Those doses were to be delivered by the end of September 2021, by the way, so I hope Canada didn't pay or got a refund.
I know Canada is supposed to give them to poor countries, but even this didn't seem to happen yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't the J&J vaccine always considered worse than mRNA or even the AZ vaccine?
Not always, South Africa sold/swapped its AZ doses to get J&J ones instead.
Also, AZ is still not approved in the USA, for some reasons.
But yes, from the data we have, mRNA vaccines have better efficacy. Getting an mRNA shot 2 months after J&J is likely very effective as well.
Re: (Score:3)
With a 2 month "booster" it seems roughly equal to two shot mRNA, the 6 month booster seems to work roughly as well as a third mRNA booster too.
Seems to me they were a bit too optimistic about only needing one shot, but shot for shot efficacy is roughly equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me they were a bit too optimistic about only needing one shot, but shot for shot efficacy is roughly equal.
I've heard the same, that a second shot of the J&J vaccine brought the effectiveness close to the mRNA vaccines.
Because there was a rush to get vaccines that worked well enough, there wasn't time to determine the optimal course of treatment. I've also seen it mentioned that it looks like getting a second dose of an mRNA vaccine 2-3 months after the first dose is more effective than getting the second dose after 3-4 weeks. Hopefully there will be opportunities in the next year to optimize.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, the immediate protection of J&J is comparable to AZ, while having fewer side effects. Here in the Netherlands, AZ was restricted to higher age brackets after reports of side effects in young women in particular, while J&J was in general use until mid-summer, after which mRNA became the norm and J&J was only used for special cases.
If it indeed provides better long term protection, there might be a role for it in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US the push has been to get people vaccinated with anything they'll take so Moderns, Pfizer, and J&J have all been pushed.
I know I heard from a number of people that they preferred one shot J&J over the other 2 two shot mRNA vaccines. I don't know if they were aware that J&J is rated significantly less effective than the other two but I didn't really want to push on the issue with any of them. I'm just happy they were getting vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US the push has been to get people vaccinated with anything they'll take so Moderns, Pfizer, and J&J have all been pushed.
I know I heard from a number of people that they preferred one shot J&J over the other 2 two shot mRNA vaccines. I don't know if they were aware that J&J is rated significantly less effective than the other two but I didn't really want to push on the issue with any of them. I'm just happy they were getting vaccinated.
Beyond the initial studies leading to authorization and approval, how has effectiveness compared between the three in dealing with the variants?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but you've gotta learn to use google. I'm a random on the internet not a vaccination expert, why would you ask me this question?
No, overall was better (Score:1)
Wasn't the J&J vaccine always considered worse than mRNA or even the AZ vaccine?
For sure not over AZ, where protection was about the same and side effects less.
However if you consider the larger picture, J&J was always the best vaccine:
1) Room temperature storage instead of temperatures that require special refrigeration.
2) A single shot means people are more likely to complete full course of vaccination.
3) Based on older vaccine technology and therefore risks much more likely to be known based on
Re: (Score:2)
mRNA vaccines are about 20 years old now. Many have been developed before the COVID vaccines.
They did not go into widespread use because initial studies showed they were no more effective than traditional vaccines. With the extra difficulty of storage and transport, there was no reason to commercialize them.
So first, there's been plenty of time for some sort of long-term harm to appear.
Second, that's not how vaccines work. After about 2-4 days, the vaccine is no longer in your body. It's in the local wa
Re: (Score:2)
I still take it over allergic reactions to Pfizer (Score:3)
TTS for J&J has about the same prevalence of anaphylactic shock with Pfizer, except that one hits my gender equally whereas TTS is not a risk for me at all.
I hope they still make the J&J vaccine by the time government gets too obnoxious with booster mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
TTS for J&J has about the same prevalence of anaphylactic shock with Pfizer, except that one hits my gender equally whereas TTS is not a risk for me at all.
I hope they still make the J&J vaccine by the time government gets too obnoxious with booster mandates.
But what is the percentage of cases where the Pfizer vax has caused anaphylactic shock? Moreover, and just like in any medical establishment that provides treatment with penicillin, all COVID vaccination locations carry epinephrine injections, so the risk (on top of being statistically negligible, it is also manageable.
I'm not being nonchalant about the risk. I am myself allergic to Bactrim, which I found out when my tongue and face got swollen after taking Bactrim to fight a staph infection. But we must
Another relevant Nature paper on vaccines (Score:3, Informative)
This is peer-reviewed study published in tier-1 journal.
Re:Another relevant Nature paper on vaccines (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst myocarditis can be life-threatening, most vaccine-associated myocarditis events have been mild and self-limiting22. The risk observed here is small and confined to the 7-day period following vaccination, whereas the lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantial. Indeed, myocardial injury is very common in persons admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection26, when evaluated systematically using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin tests27. Moreover, evidence of myocardial injury, irrespective of whether due to myocarditis or myocardial ischemia, is associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death28. We estimate that the absolute number of excess myocarditis events in the 28days following a first dose of adenovirus or mRNA vaccine is between one and six per million persons vaccinated, and the excess risk following the second dose of the mRNA-1283 vaccine is ten per million. By contrast, we estimate 40 excess myocarditis events per million in the 28days following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risks are more evenly balanced in younger persons aged up to 40years, where we estimated the excess in myocarditis events following SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 10 per million with the excess following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine being 15 per million. Further research is required to understand why the risk of myocarditis seems to be higher following mRNA-1273 vaccine. Although the wider societal benefits of controlling the spread of virus to those who are more vulnerable are substantial, these data may help inform public health policy and the choice of vaccine offered to younger adults.
So not only were the findings of myocarditis extremely rare and mild, they were AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than actually contracting covid unvaccinated and that’s ONLY myocarditis not any other symptoms, or death. All in all this paper is a mountain of evidence how the issue is overblown in the media and general public and the only real concern is switching out a vaccine for another vaccine that has a couple of less cases PER MILLION. If any of these vaccines were the only one available it would be several orders of magnitude safer to simply take it because the infection is far worse. Fuck getting polio of the lungs, I have no sympathy for the dying breaths of ignoramuses who still disbelieve reality and try to fight medical staff clogging the hospitals and wearing down the medical providers and generally making the world worse off for everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My conclusions from reading the paper is that Pfizer vaccines is safer than Moderna and separating vaccination shots by only 30 days is likely too short. Another conclusion is that if you experience cardio symptoms after a shot, go to a hospital right away. Most people don't even realize that such side-effects are possible, as the enforced point of view is that vaccines do not have any side effects.
False, at least in all of America. Every person given a vaccine of any type for covid is required to wait for any side effects to develop for at least 15 minutes, 30 if you have underlying conditions that could increase thus chance. People are given this verbally, it’s on the literature that’s handed out, and it’s posted on the walls.
Second, safer when it means 2-3 mild adverse reactions per million but does a good job of preventing death that’s about a 3% chance is not safer, i
Re: (Score:2)
The myocarditis seems to be due to the mRNA getting into the bloodstream and thus producing spike proteins throughout the cardiovascular system, instead of in localized muscle tissue. The way to prevent it is to draw back the syringe slightly first to check to see if blood comes out easily or not. If blood comes out, then don't inject, because you hit a blood vessel of some sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain your "order of magnitude" math? (Score:2)
From what you quote at the beginning (presumably for all ages together?), it says myocarditis can be up to 6 in a million (it says 1- 6, I am picking the high one) from a first shot, and 10 in a million from a second shot, which adds up to 16 in a million for a two dose series. The risk is 40 in a million for contracting covid (presumably without early treatment which one can debate the effectiveness). So, 16 compared to 40 is not an order of magnitude (10x) difference, it is about 2.5x.
Further, not everyon
Re: (Score:2)
From what you quote at the beginning (presumably for all ages together?), it says myocarditis can be up to 6 in a million (it says 1- 6, I am picking the high one) from a first shot, and 10 in a million from a second shot, which adds up to 16 in a million for a two dose series. The risk is 40 in a million for contracting covid (presumably without early treatment which one can debate the effectiveness). So, 16 compared to 40 is not an order of magnitude (10x) difference, it is about 2.5x.
Further, not everyone actually would get Covid even if no one was vaccinated because typical infectious diseases spread to about 60-70% before transmission gets difficult for the disease. So, when you consider that (perhaps a 30% reduction, so maybe 40 becomes an actual risk of 28 or so), it seems to me the numbers are actually about the same (16 versus 28) when considering how noisy all the data may be. Reasons the data is noisy include that adverse reactions tend to be underreported significantly and trial results tend to be spun as best as possible and trials also generally involve only very healthy people and so may not always be generalizable to the entire population.
Even worse, the quoted bit says later on that for people under 40 years of age, the rate of myocarditis from the second dose is 16 per million (it does not say the rate for the first) but the rate from getting Covid is 10 per million. So, the study seems to show that for people under 40, they have about a 50% greater risk of heart damage from the vaccine than from the disease. If you again add in the fact that not everyone would get the disease, then the risk of getting myocarditis from the vaccine is probably about 2x that of the disease for people under 40. So for that one concern, it seems like a negative risk/benefit ratio for people under 40 years old.
That is what the part you quoted seems to say (to me). Yet you concluded "So not only were the findings of myocarditis extremely rare and mild, they were AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less than actually contracting covid unvaccinated".
Can you please explain how you reached that conclusion? For example, am I making a basic math error here myself in analyzing the quoted text? Did I misread something perhaps?
You never read the source article. From the abstract:
We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1million vaccinated in the 28days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1million patients in the 28days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.
Collectively if you look at all groups it’s an order of magnitude. Yes for young adults the risk of only myocarditis is completely irrelevant because already we have approaching 200k hospital admissions [cdc.gov] or already 300 per million if you assume every single person has already been infected, realistically we are perhaps a third at best. There have been 4761 deaths [statista.com] or 87 per million already, with 1/3 that’s more like 260 deaths per million.
Re: (Score:3)
Projection: It's all the GOP has left.
the elephant in the room (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What (and I cannot emphasize this enough) the fuck are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe that words with more syllables will help hide that you have no idea what you're talking about?
Effectiveness doesn't matter (Score:2)
The only reason why I would get it is to avoid job loss. I don't care about effectiveness or side effects. To that end, if I have to get it, I will get the J&J one because it's less shit going into my body under duress.
Re: (Score:2)
Riiight. https://www.sorryantivaxxer.co... [sorryantivaxxer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not anti vaccination.
I'm anti forced vaccination.
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't getting vaccinated and you think it's a big deal that you have to get vaccinated then you are an antivaxxer even if you don't like the term.
So, you're OK with a virus forcing into you... (Score:2)
So let me get this straight.
You're OK with a virus invading your body, to use you as a platform to reproduce itself and infect other humans, imposing a risk of serious illness and death on you and the people you are likely to go on and infect.
But you are NOT OK with humans twisting your arm a bit, to get you to take a low-risk shot in the arm to prevent you being co-opted by the virus as a weapon vs. other humans to reproduce itself and infect others?
So, you're on the side of the virus, to the point where y
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're on the side of the virus
Yes. They are the enemy, and should be treated by society as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Boo hoo
Electrostatic attraction ... (Score:2)
Another reason to not bother with J&J is that Omicron is becoming the dominant strain in the next few weeks, and J&J being not effective against it [reuters.com], there is no point in continuing to roll it out.
Pfizer and Moderna have higher efficacy, and less severe side effects too.
As far as clots, they are indeed rare (1:250,000 or so), but still ...
This paper [science.org] is about how Astra Zeneca's ChadOx1 (Chimpanzee Adenovirus) causes rare clots. It starts with enough of the vaccine particles seeping into the blood, and
CDC now says ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Blaming it all on your favorite political punching bag means you don't understand the problem and therefore have no way to rectify it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
An anti intellectual monster was created and now it's out of control.
NBC has been a bad source for many years (Score:2)
The list of phony and/or rigged news stories on NBC is extremely long and goes back decades. If you have been an NBC viewer for all these years you may not know this, so let me get you started in having your eyes opened: Back in the nineties NBC decided to tell their audiences that GM Trucks were death traps so they rigged a truck [latimes.com] with model rocket motors in its gas tank and shot some video they aired for their viewers with nary a word about the highly deliberate and dishonest deception [nytimes.com].
Then, of course, the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And they wonder why few trust them (Score:1, Insightful)
It may be irrational over the whole adult population, but if you're a healthy young woman, it's not at all clear that one is worse than the other. And again: if you have covid and end up dead, that's bad but about one shot in 10k for that population. If you get VITT and stroke out to the point of being severely disabled for the rest of your life (also comparable probability in that population), then you can see how it's not clear that vaccination with J&J (which had lower overall efficacy to boot) is th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
More nuance. J&J was specifically created to vaccinate the underprivileged. Hence the "one vaccine rather than two", "less refrigeration needs" and "non-profit".
Last one likely being the main reason why this one is getting shat on by "the experts" in the land of charging extra for medical services.
Re: And they wonder why few trust them (Score:1)
You don't see that now. But back when it was approved in January or February 2021, the public health talking heads both in and out of government were doing backflips telling the general public to ignore the lower efficacy of J&J because reasons and to not shop around because every vaccine was equally good. The J&J pause was an overcorrection (in that it killed confidence in all 3 vaccines) which occurred after it became impossible to deny that some vaccines were in fact more equal than others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the J&J "pause" in April was very much the lie coming back to bite the public health establishment
No, it was the decline in public education coming back to bite them. They never said that there would never be any side effects. The premise is that vaccination is safer than no vaccination. As you say, people are very bad at estimating risk, and also freak out more over freak occurrences that they thought wouldn't happen than over mass ones that they thought would. But none of that is an argument against vaccination, only against willful ignorance.
You, however, are not ignorant. You know all of this. That
Re: (Score:2)
and then you cast the blame on the people themselves for doing what they normally do instead of holding responsible the public health apparatus whose primary job is to *convince* the people to behave in ways beneficial to their health.
Some tasks are impossible. Public education has, as I have pointed out, been compromised over the years, and is in a sad state today for a variety of reasons which would be tedious to fight about today. Suffice to say that some of the reasons are partisan, others are superstitious, and all of them add up to people with poor critical thinking skills being influenced by obvious propaganda tricks. The public health apparatus, as you put it, has limited options available to it as they are so highly dependent on
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere in that vast wasteland called Nuance
... Exist people who still trust a Dragon for voice recognition.
Re: (Score:1)
Please report to the re-education center immediately
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the official line was that all vaccines were safe and effective for all people
No, you didn't. You're just trolling.
Oh wait, I forgot that no matter what the official line is, even if it's two things at the same time, we're not supposed to ask questions
No, you're not supposed to ask questions that have already been answered, like should I troll Slashdot??Because the answer is why?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I just got off another thread where the insistence was that all vaccines were safe and effective for all people - and the position being cited was the CDC.
But perhaps you've got better information than me.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
What You Need to Know
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.
Now, of course, maybe they forgot to put in caveats there, and didn't mean it as a universal. But are any of us really qualified enough to question the CDC's statement? Shouldn't we just believe them?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit that triggering the "trust the science" libs when the actual research says something they don't like is hilarious.
No, I do not. Such activity is preying upon people's insecurities, and exacerbating a problem which is already affecting people's lives. I'm sorry that someone hurt you so badly that you got the message that you should hurt other people for fun, that's extremely unfair for you and also harmful to others, so I take no pleasure in the damage to your emotional development. I hope that you will get the help you need so that you don't have to harm others for your pleasure.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Should this be censored? (Score:4, Informative)
How sweet to be an idiot, and see all the world in black and white with no shades of gray whatsoever. If the standard is "no risk whatsoever," then you know what else isn't safe? FUCKING COVID-19.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I agreed with you. I believe everything the CDC ever says.
Re: (Score:1)
Our side is taking the stance that your side is endangering our lives far more by not getting vaccinated than our side is endangering yours by insisting that you do get vaccinated. It's a simple risk-reward comparison, and your side does not compare favorably.
Re:Should this be censored? (Score:5, Informative)
If your side is fully vaccinated and on a 4th booster, and vaccines are effective, then how possibly anybody else's choice would endanger you?
Vaccines are some percentage effective. They protect populations more effectively than they protect individuals, and our goals should include protecting both.
Part of vaccination being effective is me getting it, to protect me and others, including you. And part of it is you getting it, to protect you and others, including me. If not enough people get it, then it's not effective at protecting populations. This is very simple stuff, so I suspect you know this but are only trolling. That is after all the #1 reason to check the box to post anonymously.
Do you trust your vaccines to work? Yes or no?
Yes, but their full effect is only seen if enough people get them.
If yes, then why you keep panicking?
When did you stop beating your wife? [huffpost.com]
If no, then why do you want to force ineffective vaccines on others?
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. But I want to face the consequences of an unvaccinated population even less. The vaccines are effective, as we all know, including you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not allowed to have an opinion of your own. Listen to the CDC, and believe whatever they say. Individual opinions and thought are dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had an opinion you hadn't rented from someone trying to sell you a line of bullshit I wouldn't care if you expressed it, but you don't. You have someone else's shitty ideas in there, and you're not smart enough to realize that they are shit.
Get smart.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you call CDC ideas shitty! You're not allowed to disagree with them!
Believe the authorities. They are our authorities for a reason, and we cannot let ourselves doubt them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, you can't trust any news that might contradict the official narrative. Tucker Carlson is morally obligated to agree with everything the CDC says, just like you and me.
Even if the narrative changes, you have to agree with it. Even if the narrative has two contradictory points, you have to believe both of them at the same time. Doubt in our authorities will kill us all, so we can never doubt them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, vaccines are only some percentage effective. Even you had to admit that much.
You've got that backwards. Especially I admit that much, because I'm not trying to hide anything from anyone and never have my whole life. Sometimes to my benefit, sometimes to my detriment, but always authentic. If you are half as clever as you think you are, you can trivially verify this for yourself.
The whole reason why we need as many people as possible to be vaccinated is that they are not 100% effective, but they are the only realistic way to reach the herd immunity that you herd of dipshits claim to
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm vaxxed, but maybe all those relentless attacks on anyone who expressed the slightest concern about taking the vaccines weren't really justified. In my mind, those attacks just made some people get defensive and dig in their heels to point where they no longer would even consider taking it.
The same people that attack others for not following 'the science' of vaccination s
Re: (Score:1)
You might be in a different reality than everyone else who read the news today. The J&J vaccine is still recommended. If that's all you can get, then it's still a no-brainer to take it instead of nothing. It's just outcompeted with some higher-tech vaccines.
Attacking people for completely making up reasons for not being vaccinated is still just fine. It probably doesn't help
Re: (Score:2)
The same people that attack others for not following 'the science' of vaccination seem to themselves completely ignore behavioral science in how they respond. Collectively stupid, aren't we....
If you have any understanding of how both classes of vaccines (mRNA vs Adenovirus) work then you'd know why those concerns weren't and still aren't at all justified for the mRNA vaccines, which are typically what people are referring to. Ignoring the fact that there has literally only been one vaccine in history that has had any adverse effect beyond 6 weeks (and even then, that wasn't the fault of the vaccine, it was a fault of how the body responded to the real virus from second contact, regardless of whe
Re: (Score:2)
Health Minister Patty Hajdu also received her first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in her Thunder Bay, Ont. riding.
“The best vaccine for you is the one in your arm! Today was my turn to receive my first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine,"
https://twitter.com/PattyHajdu... [twitter.com]
“The bottom line for Canadians is the right vaccine for you to take is the very first vaccine that you are offered.” - Justin Trudeau, PM of Canada and Medical Professional
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politic... [ctvnews.ca]
Knowledge changes. Supply changes. (Score:2)
Both knowledge about the vaccines and the supply thereof have changed in the past eight months. The cited Tweet and CTV News article were published in April, when COVID-19 vaccines were in short supply, and little was known about the relative safety and effectiveness of EUA'd vaccines other than that all of them proved in clinical trials to be significantly less bad than getting the virus. Under those conditions, taking the first jab offered was indeed the least bad policy. Since then, mRNA vaccines have be
Re: (Score:2)
First quarter 2021:
"At this point, they're all safe enough in that we know they're all much safer than the virus. Get vaccinated."
Fourth quarter 2021:
"By now, we know more about how these vaccines act in the body. Though all three EUA'd vaccines are still safer than the virus, some are safer and/or more effective than others. Get vaccinated."
I see no contradiction.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot point to these exact sentences in the linked articles because they are not direct quotations. They are my summaries of the guidance coming from FDA, CDC, and foreign counterparts during each quarter. I admit that I erred in not prefacing each with the disclaimer "To the effect".
Re:That's like saying (Score:5, Informative)
We recommend you don't get blood clots.
I hope this comment was made in jest. Otherwise, this is seriously uninformed (I happen to be immunized with the J&J vax, booster included.)
From what we know (globally and not limited to our political theater), blood clots have been tracked to less than 0.0007% of those vaccinated (and statistically not higher than those of the general population [abc7news.com].)
There's been some suggestions that the J&J vaccine is linked with rare onsets of GB syndrome at 0.0008%, similar to what was observed with vaccine immunization during 1976 swine flu outbreak (H1N1 A/NJ/76.)
In other words, GB syndrome isn't specific to the J&J vaccine, but might be by some co-factor in common with the J&J vaccine and that specific influenza vaccine at the time.
Whatever the case might be, the risk of something grave (not a fatality, but a grave symptom) is between 0.0007% and 0.0008%. That's between 7 and 8 cases per million (for developing a serious symptom, not necessarily a fatality.)
It is bad math to add these two percentages because we do not know interactions between these two syndromes, but if we wanted to be alarmists or predict a worst case scenario with these two percentages, we could add them up and say the risk of developing either or both to be 0.0015% - or 15 per million.
This is several orders of magnitude than the risk of dying from COVID, or simply the risk of being hospitalized or survive with long-term injuries ranging from lung damage to neurological disorders.
This is more so when a person is suffering from an immunological or neurological disorder or recovering from a concussion that can lead to debilitating side effects from vaccination. I personally know of three cases, one of each - immunological, neurological and concussion.
But, for the general population, the risk analysis tilts in favor of vaccination.
We are offered a devil's choice, since both options (vaccination and not vaccination) carries risk. There's no option for dealing with COVID that doesn't entail a risk.
But with 5 billion vaccinations worldwide and with plenty of data already acquired and analyzed, we know which option entails the greater risk.
So, choose wisely... or not. Y'all can make your own deals with Darwin.