EU Commission To End AstraZeneca and J&J Vaccine Contracts at Expiry (reuters.com) 131
The EU Commission has decided not to renew COVID-19 vaccine contracts next year with AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Italian daily La Stampa reported on Wednesday, citing a source from the Italian health ministry. Reuters: "The European Commission, in agreement with the leaders of many (EU) countries, has decided that the contracts with the companies that produce (viral vector) vaccines that are valid for the current year will not be renewed at their expiry," the newspaper reported. It added that Brussels would rather focus on COVID-19 vaccines using messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, such as Pfizer's and Moderna's. A spokesman for the EU Commission said it was keeping all options open to be prepared for the next stages of the pandemic, for 2022 and beyond.
Crystal ball. (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically mRNA is the future of vaccines.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the future of vaccines you'll be allowed to get, I guess.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I"m willing to bet for at least the next 2-3 days...YouTube, and social medial sites will STILL block this new story, saying it is anti-vax or misinformation.
Re:Crystal ball. (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to close their accounts on social media sites. They're poison for society and for the soul.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably for some vaccines, at least. If I understand correctly, this approach was successful with AIDS. I suspect there will be times when other methods will be more effective or cheaper or easier to store and administer.
Re: (Score:3)
So basically mRNA is the future of vaccines.
Until we find something better, it seems highly likely we will stick with mRNA vaccines. We might even replace some old vaccines with mRNA ones in order to unify manufacturing.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we find something better, it seems highly likely we will stick with mRNA vaccines.
mRNA vaccines may not work well for all pathogens.
Re: (Score:2)
mRNA vaccines may not work well for all pathogens.
The ones it wont work well on pathogens that don't have an existing method of being targeted. If it mutates quickly then you are on your own or attack T cells directly then it cannot be fought with any vaccine. Utilizing mRNA in this manner makes it the perfect tool for training the immune system. It's original purpose is to train the immune system to identify cancer cells (and kill them). In this regard the technology shows great promise.
Re:Crystal ball. (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
This is just madness. In the US, six people were shot by their dogs last year, and we're not banning dogs or guns. But six people out of 7 million get blood clots, and we're going to stop vaccinating people from a disease which is far more likely to kill you than a one-in-a-million chance.
This whole thing is bonkers. Can nobody do even simple math anymore? You're more likely to get struck by lightning than get a blood clot.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, but it doesn't seem like, at least in the US, there's any shortage of (very minutely, possibly) safer mRNA vaccines so maybe it's not such a big deal especially if it's only a short pause to look at the data and instruct physicians how to treat these clots (not heparin).
A few weeks ago our AZ vaccine site was empty, you had to sit there and refresh and get very lucky to find an appointment. Today I checked for wife and there's shitloads of open Pfizer/Moderna spots.
And don't get me started on guns..
Re: (Score:3)
the R's wont EVER let thinking people address the gun problem in the US.
dont blame biden. its not his fault that he won't be allowed by the obstructionist party to get ANYTHING meaningful done in this arena.
as always, AS ALWAYS, the blockers are the R's when it comes to any kind of forward progress in this country.
Re:Crystal ball. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly it.
Gun Control is Symptom control. It does NOT address the real problems in society.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
In reality, you are probably more likely to be killed in a car accident on your way to the vaccination centre. Unfortunately, reality is not a valid argument for anything these days. The only valid argument today is "massive waving of hands".
Re:Crystal ball. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the correct denominator might not be 7 million. It might be a lot smaller if it turns out to be first women, than women on certain types of birth control, than in a certain age group..
We might be able to narrowly identify a specific sub population who really really should not use this vax and declare it safe for everyone else - if we study the problem.
Also Nobody is advising people to go stand outside in thunder storms, where they are telling you to stick this needle in your arm. So its not a very good analogy. One thing you can't really avoid thunderstorms happen, but I can not go the J&J Covid clinic. The J&J is also not the only way I can mitigate my risk from covid either. Now go do all the math to reflect the complete picture and get back to us!
Re: (Score:2)
Also Nobody is advising people to go stand outside in thunder storms, where they are telling you to stick this needle in your arm.
No one is telling people to stick the J&J vaccine in their arm. If someone is the type of person who refuses to leave their home in fear of lightning strikes, they could also choose to wait for Moderna or Pfizer. And the chance of getting hit by lightning in a given year is only similar to getting blood clots from the J&J vaccine for people living an average life. If you routinely run out into thunder storms holding a lightning rod your chances would go up tremendously.
The J&J is also not the only way I can mitigate my risk from covid either. Now go do all the math to reflect the complete picture and get back to us!
The only valid reason I have h
Re: (Score:3)
But the issue is not a choice between J&J and nothing...
The choice is between A) splitting future orders between a less effective/more problematic vaccine and a more effective/less problematic vaccine.... Or B) dropping the worse one and ordering twice as much of the other.
Even if the difference between them is marginal, say 1% for easy number but it could be even smaller, the second option B is still better because you aren't giving up anything while getting better result. It's not necessary to believe
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a pretty valid point, if not for the fact that we have so much vaccine production for quantifiably safer vaccines.
One in a million chance is higher than a zero in a million chance, and since we have alternatives, we don't have to settle for this particular risk.
Now some geographies may be unable to deal with the logistics requirements of the mRNA vaccines, but that's not the US or EU.
Re: (Score:2)
One in a million chance is higher than a zero in a million chance, and since we have alternatives, we don't have to settle for this particular risk.
We don't have alternatives. People who want to get vaccinated are not able to because there aren't enough doses yet. 7 million people getting their vaccination one month earlier will save hundreds of lives. 100 in a million is much higher than 1 in a million, which is why holding back J&J vaccines for this reason is hard to comprehend. You pretty much have to just accept people making that decision have more information than the media.
Re: (Score:3)
Except if it would only save hundreds of lives out of hundreds of millions (the population of Europe or the U.S.), that's about the same as one in a million. So if the number really is that small, it's unclear whether it is a benefit. Presumably the real number of lives saved isn't nearly that small.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is a worry.
What happens if they find equivalent problems with some of the mRNA vaccines, like 1 in a million people get ingrowing toenails or their heads explode?
It is a very dangerous precedent to set. It really goes down to regulators being completely spineless and not willing to shoulder any responsibility. If they kill a thousand by delaying a vaccination program, that is OK, but saving 999 and losing one person to a known side effect is seen to be too risky to sign off.
Re: (Score:3)
If we knew that it was a one-in-a-million side effect, we would go forward. The issues are: A) Are all the side effects being reported or is it underreported. B) Is it 1/1,000,000 with no prediction or a one-in-10,000 side effect for 1% of the population (then make them get Pfizer). B.2) It's possible that it's 1/10,000 for 1% of the vaccinated so far but a much greater than 1 percent of the population, since it seems to be focused on younger women. C) What is the onset time, and how many of those 7 mi
Re: (Score:3)
And trying to show an abundance of caution to make people feel its safe.
This is one of the few rationales that make sense. Every day J&J vaccinations are held back, causing people to be left unvaccinated because not enough Moderna or Pfizer doses are available, people will die unnecessarily. Many people, every single day it is delayed. Dozens of people are probably already doomed to death just because of the delay over the last couple of days.
There is no math that makes delaying this vaccination a rational response, unless you factor in the chance of people making irrationa
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse. Stopping one vaccine makes all those fence sitting "maybe I shouldn't get it" people point and scream "SEE! I told you these things aren't safe!!!" and get nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me, the CDC would have been better off "messaging" the issue, rather than halting J&J vaccinations.
They should have just said "There's an issue we're investigating. 6 women out of 7 million vaccinations got a rare blood clot. But we will likely kill more people by halting the J&J vaccinations. When we have actual evidence of a problem, we'll issue new guidelines or halt J&J vaccinations.
People with vaccine hesitancy will decline/avoid J&J, regardless whether the CDC finds some
Re: (Score:2)
Math is not used to determine if the vaccine will be used further or not.
There are RULES, how to treat such an situation.
And the RULES say: STOP using it.
Or do you really think there is some bureaucrat shifting papers back and forth and makes a decision based on math? Why would he?
Everyone who would recommend to keep using the vaccine would end up in court, lose his job, and his medical approbation for making such a dump and strictly wrong decision. You can be glad you are not working in such an agency. Wit
Re: (Score:2)
The most cautious approach is to get more people vaccinated - we have enough data to know for certain that the pause will cause way more deaths by Covid than it will prevent from blood clots.
I read that one of the dangerous effects of Covid is creating blood clots. So it may be that getting vaccinated actually reduces your risk of getting blood clots...
Ok, it's hard to compare, because if enough people get vaccinated to significantly reduce risk of getting Covid then all the vaccine-caused risks stay, while all the Covid-caused risks go down.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada, the claim is one in five of those hospitalized with Covid get blood clots. It's why they are not stopping using these vaccines. Especially with the variants of concern which attack young people as much as old people increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a doctor, but it wouldn't surprise me if those folks who get blood clots from the vaccine are the same people who would have gotten blood clots from the virus (and probably in a worse way from the real virus than from the vaccine.) If that were true, then the safety/risk calculation for those folks probably still favor the vaccine over risking the virus.
Re: (Score:3)
and we're going to stop vaccinating people
No we're not. Not a single country has stopped its vaccination program. You may have stopped using a certain drug but the vaccination program is ongoing.
Now you know what is more dangerous? Contracting COVID from an antivaxxer who refuses to take vaccine due to the documented evidence that the government is medicating people with a drug seen as "unsafe". Whether or not is is unsafe is irrelevant. It's seen as unsafe. Continuing to use a drug that has shown deadly (if extremely rare) side-effects is only all
Re: (Score:2)
This is just madness. In the US, six people were shot by their dogs last year, and we're not banning dogs or guns.
Jesus, don't give them any ideas. They're already pretty hardcore moving down the gun ban trail, I wouldn't be surprised if Fido was next.
Re: (Score:2)
For mass vaccination, preventing moderate illness and side effects are incredibly important too economically regardless of serious illness. Sick days after vaccination is not a topic which gets much scientific scrutiny, but governments will have very good data on it.
So apart from a reaction to mob mentality, economic factors might play a role too.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was going to play crystal ball gazer though... I predict Pfizer and Moderna will start a phase 3 trial at a half dosage soon.
The Phase 2 trials found similar antibodies in the half dosage and far fewer side-effects. I'm pretty sure the mRNA vaccines both just turned the dosage up to the max on what would get through the FDA in order to ensure efficacy. Which is the right call in a pandemic but maybe in 12 months for something like the flu they'll stick to a single half-dose which has almost zero si
Re: (Score:3)
I think the idea is that mRNA vaccines are better (safer, more effective, faster to produce) and Europe expects to have the capacity to have the logistics in place and enough mRNA vaccines for everyone in 2022.
Right now, there is not enough vaccines for everyone, so anything with an acceptable risk/reward goes. But unless there is something really wrong with deliveries, by the end of 2021, there should be enough to start getting picky.
Re: (Score:2)
That, and AstraZeneca burned the EU badly by over-promising and under-delivering, often at really short notice. They initially promised 100 million doses in the first quarter, and have delivered less than 25% of that so far. The EU has contracted to receive 300 million doses of the vaccine and they see no need to keep working with an unreliable and antagonistic supplier.
Johnson and Johnson has also been delayed, while Pfizer and Moderna have demonstrated that they can supply effective products in large numb
Re: (Score:2)
Also worth mentioning that the German-made CureVac, another promising mRNA vaccine is expected to be available in the next couple of months.
So with two good suppliers and potentially a third one, I thing there is no real need for AZ and J&J next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but if I was a 65 ranting moron like you, and my 29 old daughter died through to a blood clot - after vaccination - I would sue your company into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the clots, though.
That risk is *minor* next to the efficacy difference between modern/pfizer and everything else.
the others leave each infection a few times more likely to succeed than the mRNA choices, at a third or so compared to a twentieth.
And while 95% reduction in serious cases/hospitalization is nice, it's horrific compared to the complete success of the mRNA in trials.
For crying out loud, a single shot of mRNA is more effective than the lesser shots.
If the mRNA didn't exis, then, yes, givin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crystal ball. (Score:4, Informative)
> The viral vector vaccine also contain mRNA
They do not. They inject DNA into the nucleus, like any DNA virus. Then the DNA gets turned into RNA, and that makes your cells produce the spike mimic.
But the viral vector vaccine does not, itself, have any mRNA in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a RNA virus, so I'd assume that it is RNA that they are using.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a RNA virus, so I'd assume that it is RNA that they are using.
Correct. One of the things the viral RNA (a mRNA) codes for is a RNA-driven-RNA-synthesis system, to make copies of the viral RNA without a DNA step.
Note, though, that the vaccine RNA is modRNA. The uracil bases are slightly modified. They still work for driving protein synthesis. But most of the vaccine particles don't make it into cells and break down in the fluid between them, releasing their RNA payload, which could cause trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there are no reports of clotting with Sputnik V and that also uses viral vectors.
The theory is that the clotting is due to the COVID-19 spike protein these vaccines administer to the bloodstream rather than the vectors themselves.
There are also at least two other types of vaccines other than mRNA and viral vectors. Including attenuated virus like the Chinese SinoVac or vaccines which use protein subunits.
Re: (Score:3)
The amount of delivered Sputnik V isn't very large and it is mostly delivered to poorer countries that might not screen for this kind of side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there are no reports of clotting with Sputnik V and that also uses viral vectors.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And that's even without considering that the countries where Sputnik V is used in are more prone to suppress bad news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As the Mighty Wil Smith taught us, Cancer Vaccines are nothing but trouble.
Re:Crystal ball. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's an example of one (cancer vaccine) developed in Cuba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Great News (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That may be the plan. The traditional vaccines are inferior in a few ways. As well as the blood clotting issue, anecdotally people seem to be much more likely to feel bad after getting one. It's described as being like having the flu for a couple of days.
It would be a big advantage for the EU if it had enough mRNA vaccine to meet its needs because time off to recover from the traditional ones is an economic cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of thumb is to count on taking the next day off after the 2nd injection.
Not everyone of course, I know some folks that didn't feel anything either time.
But most people I know on 2nd shot, pretty much were out of it next day to some extent...both for Pfizer and Moderna.
Re: (Score:2)
I felt somewhat sick for the 24 hours after shot one. So I’m not particularly looking forward to shot two.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfizer-
Shot 1: nothing but a little tired.
Shot 2: tired, slept 12 hours, woke up fine.
Same for all my family members.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given they are feeling their bodies’ immune response to the vaccine - I’m not sure that’s “something to be eliminated”.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
anecdotally people seem to be much more likely to feel bad after getting one. It's described as being like having the flu for a couple of days.
That is obviously what one would expect from a vaccine. As the body - aka immune system - has to do the exact same work as if it was a real infection.
Re: (Score:2)
So much wrong here it's no wonder you're not putting your nym to it...
Well, that and it looks awfully like the mRNA vaccines are significantly more effective against variants.
I've seen no evidence to suggest such a thing. Given that both the viral vector and the mRNA vaccines code for and produce exactly the same spike protein within the body they all essentially trigger and train our immune systems to react in the same way to the same thing.
In addition, given the difference in incidence rates at the times of the various trials, there's no evidence that any of the various vaccines are any more or less effectiv
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well if you're going to go that route then why not just skip the vaccine altogether and just get intentionally infected Covid-19.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad news: adenovirus vector vaccines inject DNA into the nucleus of the cell whereas the mRNA vaccines' payload is delivered to the cytoplasm.
This is the tricky part about COVID vaccines (Score:2)
That said there's plenty of room to improve the vaccines against the Afrika & UK variants, so I doubt the research has gone to waste. If the Moderna & Pfizer vaccines didn't exist the J&J and Astrazeneca would be just fine, the risks would be well worth the benefits. But, well, they've been pretty well outcompeted in the 1st world where the distribution facilities exist.
Re: (Score:2)
With only at best a 7mo. history of usage of these vaccines in terms of efficacy who's to say we don't have ample opportunity for another dose? IMO this will be another flu shot for all of us so there'll be ample profit opportunities for big pharma.
Or it could be like Chickenpox (Varicella) [cdc.gov]
"The fatality rate for varicella was approximately 1 per 100,000 cases among children age 1 through 14 years, 6 per 100,000 cases among persons age 15 through 19 years, and 21 per 100,000 cases among adults. "
Re: (Score:2)
With only at best a 7mo. history of usage of these vaccines in terms of efficacy who's to say we don't have ample opportunity for another dose? IMO this will be another flu shot for all of us so there'll be ample profit opportunities for big pharma.
Moderna actually announced the other day that they are working on a booster shot, which they are hoping to combine with a (mRNA based) flu shot: a single annual injection to maintain COVID resistance and protect from the flu.
Re:This is the tricky part about COVID vaccines (Score:4, Insightful)
Even in the first world, there are important high-risk niches where a single-dose vaccine is way preferable.
Where I live, commercial fishermen are a real issue. They may be off at sea come time for a second dose. Awkward.
Homeless people are also not as easy to track down for a second dose as some others.
Every country puts people in jails. They may not still be there 28 days later. People with orderly stable lives are statistically underrepresented in jails.
As Picard said, "In a crisis it is always best to have more than one option". I'm not comfortable with anyone discarding the option of a one-dose vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that several studies have suggested that even just the first shot of one of the mRNA vaccines demonstrated a higher efficacy than the J&J.
We don't settle for just one knowing the two-shot series is provably better, but if we *had* to, single shot of one of those is an adequate stand-in for J&J.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be true, but the overall takeaway is that all of them were deemed to be solid vaccines and data based on the actual rollout to the general population suggests that the efficacy rate for the 1st shot is effective all by itself, though confirming the two shot series is even better, and in line with the 90+% efficacy that the studies showed, even with the prevalence of more strains in the mix than their initial trials.
For both manufacturing capacity and efficacy, settling for single-shot might be a wo
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not comfortable with anyone discarding the option of a one-dose vaccine
I'd agree with you if the first dose didn't provide such an overwhelmingly positive benefit and that the timing of the second dose is so irrelevant to to the point where many countries are now as a policy maximising the first dose over the second. The CDC study showed that the Pfizer vaccine grants 80% immunity after the first dose. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine grants 72% immunity after its only dose. Both vaccines (even at the first dose only) have a 100% efficacy at preventing hospitalisation i.e. thos
Re: (Score:2)
These are nowhere near as bad as the biggest problem with two dose vaccine. People who get severe bad reaction to the first dose, and do not show up for the second one. Their numbers are already a problem that everyone is terrified to talk about in the field in countries where social conformity is not considered a universal ideal like it is in my nation.
And even we are having problems with such people right now.
This is why those in the know like myself where looking to J&J as the "vaccine to end the pan
Likey safe if they have severe reaction to #1 (Score:2)
These are nowhere near as bad as the biggest problem with two dose vaccine. People who get severe bad reaction to the first dose, and do not show up for the second one.
If they have a severe reaction to #1 they're very likely to be safe. Maybe not as safe as someone who had two doses, but safer than someone who had only one and didn't have a severe reaction.
There are two reasons they'd get a severe reaction to the first shot:
1: They reacted because they already had some immunity to SARS family viru
Re: (Score:2)
This hypothesising about various things related to the virus and illness it causes have been very popular since the beginning of the pandemic.
It has overwhelmingly proven to result in wildly incorrect assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
This hypothesising about various things related to the virus and illness it causes have been very popular since the beginning of the pandemic.
It has overwhelmingly proven to result in wildly incorrect assumptions.
That's nice.
I'm curious. Can you point to any of my "hypotheses" about COVID-19, sars-cov-2, or the vaccines that proved to be wildly incorrect? (They're all still up on Slashdot for you to read and criticize.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Let's go with the obvious example results of which are still across the stores and the like: "Washing hands a lot and sterilizing surfaces is important in battle against covid".
I think it was between June and August 2020 that this was fully and completely debunked.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why those in the know like myself where looking to J&J as the "vaccine to end the pandemic". It's the only one that has only a single shot needed AND it requires minimal refrigeration.
The minimal refrigeration requirements are very good. But the immunity levels of the singe shot J&J is about the same as those from one shot of the Russian "Sputnik" two-dose series, similar to the levels of only taking the first dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vax. It will knock down the transmission rate - p
Re: (Score:2)
>But the immunity levels of the singe shot J&J is about the same as those from one shot of the Russian "Sputnik" two-dose series, similar to the levels of only taking the first dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vax. It will knock down the transmission rate - perhaps enough to generate herd immunity - but on an individual basis it's not all that great: It gives you a factor of about three reduction in likeyhood of getting COVID-13 (versus a factor of between 20 and 50 for Pfizer and Moderna) and a factor
Re: (Score:2)
They may be off at sea come time for a second dose.
>
It's unlikely they'll be at sea for an entire 8 week period, which means there'll be adequate opportunity to schedule a second dose.
Your other examples are less flawed :)
As Picard said, "In a crisis it is always best to have more than one option". I'm not comfortable with anyone discarding the option of a one-dose vaccine.
It feels silly to discard that option. Actual choice of appropriate vaccine is a decision factoring in a lot of context, including distribution, cost, population acceptance and the availability and ease of scheduling and delivering a second dose.
Ditching AZ is the EU trying to reject the UK, but abandoning the J&J option? Feels a st
Re: (Score:2)
Ditching AZ is the EU trying to reject the UK,
That is nonsense.
but abandoning the J&J option? Feels a strange choice.
You are stupid, right? Both vaccines have the exact same deadly side effect that is why they are abandoning them.
Sigh, read some news before spreading your nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Both vaccines have the exact same deadly side effect
Yes. A negligible risk of something happening to a very small and specific demographic.
Medically there's fuck all reason to discard either. This is all politics.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Moderna & Pfizer vaccines didn't exist the J&J and Astrazeneca would be just fine, the risks would be well worth the benefits. But, well, they've been pretty well outcompeted in the 1st world where the distribution facilities exist.
Viral vector vaccines, such as J&J, Astrazeneca, and Sputnik, are limited, because they also produce immunity to the vector. This drastically reduces or eliminates the effectiveness of any future immunization of the same individual with another vaccine based o
All I say is.. (Score:2)
Zombie apocalypse here we come!
We need an frank discussion about Vaccines (Score:3)
Sorry, I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I have to start raising questions when gov'ts prohibit supposedly "safe, tested" vaccines. We need to be able to question the authorities and the companies about efficacy, safety ... all of it.
Remember, they thought Thalidomide was safe too. [nytimes.com]
“Every woman in this country, I think, must be aware that it’s most important that they check their medicine cabinet and that they do not take this drug.”
- JFK
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I have to start raising questions when gov'ts prohibit supposedly "safe, tested" vaccines. We need to be able to question the authorities and the companies about efficacy, safety ... all of it.
Remember, they thought Thalidomide was safe too. [nytimes.com]
“Every woman in this country, I think, must be aware that it’s most important that they check their medicine cabinet and that they do not take this drug.”
- JFK
Nothing is actually approved, it's all temporary emergency authorizations because the need for vaccines is so critical.
There's enough testing to make sure there's nothing super-common and nasty, but some 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000 side effects can sneak through.
It's also important to remember that AstraZeneca and J&J only look bad with their extremely rare side effects since Moderna & Pfizer don't seem to have any problems. There's a lot of very common medications that have worse side effects.
If Astr
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't. We need to have a frank discussion about the risk of developing a blood clot when contracting COVID, not a discussion about developing a clot from the vaccine.
type I and type II errors (Score:2)
Working to overly minimize one results in increasing the other. That just simple statistics. Your (and the Government's) bias is strongly towards minimizing one). Yes, six people suffered a complication, and one really unfortunate person died (although that may well be more to the use of Heprin where contraindicated).
The huge number of people who are now protected from serious COVID complications (several million thanks to this J&J shot) have benefited.
Should anyone be forced to take the J&J shot...
Re: (Score:2)
They thought Thalidomide was safe too.
The FDA performed drug trials and refused to approve it. So... great example thank you of government regulation working.
I have to start raising questions when gov'ts prohibit supposedly "safe, tested" vaccines.
It is safe. It was tested. It was tested to ensure it was safer than the alternative: Covid. When you have a virus that kills between 1,000-10,000 of every million people it infects you approve a vaccine as soon as its danger is demonstrably lower than that threshold. J&J passed that threshold.
The FDA was asked "will this vaccine kill as many people as the disease it's going to st
Too much supply available? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFS is talking about the next year.
Re: (Score:2)
TFS is talking about the next year.
Do they mean when EU will be overwhelmed by vaccine-resistant variants from Brazil?
Re: (Score:2)
Biontech already delivers more and faster than expected but they are limited by some of the raw materials. These will start to come from two German factories in a month or two hence Biontech will easily be able to supply the whole EU next year.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm allergic to penicillin. So are others. I don't see that being pulled off the market even though it has a higher rate of serious and life threatening symptoms
While I don't understand why the viral vector vaccines are being made almost completely unavailable, the comparison with penicillin misses a distinction; we understand WHY people are allergic to penicillin and related drugs. We still have problems where someone first discovers that they ARE, but once they are, they can (usually) avoid the simi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hearing that people with low platelet counts are more vulnerable to this clotting issue.
"All six of the women known to have suffered cerebral venous sinus thrombosis had low platelet counts, leading experts to speculate that the vaccine somehow, activates platelets and leads to blood clots in the channels that help route blood away from the brain. The clots can cause strokes or similar damage to the brain." https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/13/what-to-know-jj-vaccine-blood-clots-cvst/.
As it
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hearing that people with low platelet counts are more vulnerable to this clotting issue.
Isn't that an effect of the reaction rather than the cause of the clot? Do they know that those affected had low platelet counts before their vaccinations?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we should isolate you and others with your genetic weakness so that we don't need to introduce the inefficiency of determining your susceptibility at the time and point of service.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how allergies work...it's a complex multi-factor condition, which means many genes that are not individually culpable and the environment both play a huge role. Identical twins living in the same household often have different sets of allergies.
You very well could have the same "genetic weakness" and not know about it, even if you are not allergic to penicillin.
You can also not be allergic to penicillin right now and become allergic later in life.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you may have missed the point of my post.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm allergic to penicillin.
So am I which is why when I go to hospital I don't get given penicillin but rather get one of the alternatives.
Putting my conspiracy hat on: I suspect that the epidemiologists have some theories as to which subgroups may be at risk.
Really? Did you just say the deaths are only statistical noise? Make up your mind. Either we're stopping the use of a drug and evaluating the risk or it's just statistical noise. Either way take your conspiracy hat off and let the actual experts do their thing rather than guessing.
And possibly a certain ethnic group who-may-not-be-criticized or even shown to be genetically weak.
And take your racist hat off too while you're at it.
Re: (Score:3)
Relevant:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ey... [twimg.com]
Funniest part is, novel coronavirus infection itself carries a 16,5% risk of getting blood clots. Compared to various common things, smoking is 0,18%, and birth control pill is 0,05% to 0,12%.
Ox/AZ vaccine? 0,0004%.
Welcome to modern journalist class lying to you to make their salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the journalist. See, that image above has sources under it.
I know, I know. As a journalist, you're used to "sources" being something you invent. Sit down for this. In other fields, "sources" are actually real.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried breathing through your nose yet?
It's amazing!