A
Covid Deaths in PA
- Thread starter Pirata
- Start date
And validates you can get longer term adverse reactions. The traditional delivery system has been tested but you see what can happen over time. It doesn’t “endorse” anything unless your head is in the sand.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Nowhere in the article did it state the TTS was a long-term effect nor give a time frame for the condition...🤡
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Nowhere in the article did it state the TTS was a long-term effect nor give a time frame for the condition...🤡
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Why dont you highlight where in the article it gave a timeframe for the TTS to develop?
Should be simple.
Should be simple.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
You said it validates you can get long term adverse reactions... where in the article did it say that?
Or you just making stuff up again?
Science here hasn’t really changed yet. There is a very small risk of blood clots with J&J. Less risk with the mRNA vaccines. They are preferred and readily available so they recommend them over J&J. When the available vaccines were not as abundant, J&J was better than not being vaccinated.
It validates that the FDA and drug companies monitor adverse events and have to make decisions based on them.
Are you that dense?
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Lmao who said they wouldnt monitor?
You posted the article and said it validated long term adverse effects, which is said nothing like that.
It comes down to money. Pfizer is the king of lobbying and that's why it gets preferential treatment from the government. Even Moderna is getting noticeably less press lately. It's all about Pfizer. I guess J&J didn't lobby hard enough to be rewarded.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Cant even answer a simple question, you're something .
What was the average time from getting the vaccine to TTS developing?
You’re posts are either one line insults or plain stupid questions. Whenever I try to answer it’s wash, rinse, repeat. I don’t have an obligation to educate someone who has no interest in having a discussion . See ya
You said it validates the longer term adverse reactions, but these blood clots aren’t that… and still extremely rare, and less than blood clots from getting Covid.
This isn’t new. We’ve known about J&J blood clots for a while.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
But obviously they are of more concern now give the pending advisory. It validates why Pharma companies monitor adverse events over time. Because stuff happens sometimes that wasn’t anticipated during the clinical trial process.
So why are they recommending against it now? Why didn't they do so when the issues first surfaced?
They aren’t. They are saying the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are better options.
They are not more of a concern now. Same concern. What has changed is the abundant supply of the preferred option.
Interesting take from the media. COVID is expected to become an "endemic" in 2022 and we should expect to go back to normal life. Interesting timing going into mid term season!
www.cnbc.com
The pandemic could end in 2022 — here's what 'normal' life might look like soon, according to medical experts
Epidemiologists and infectious disease experts say Covid-19 could become endemic, ending the pandemic, in 2022. Here's what 'normal' life might look like soon.
Right, which is not new. They just said the J&J shots are still available but mRNA is preferred because their data is more favorable.
It’s from their press release.
ACIP’s unanimous recommendation followed a robust discussion of the latest evidence on vaccine effectiveness, vaccine safety and rare adverse events, and consideration of the U.S. vaccine supply. The U.S. supply of mRNA vaccines is abundant – with nearly 100 million doses in the field for immediate use.
Which aren’t new though. When they paused JJ 7 or 8 months ago, there were 28 case and 6 deaths for blood clots. Now there are 54 cases and 9 deaths.
They are a very rare potential side effect of around 3 cases per million shots and we have known that for some time.
But they are adverse events and they are increasing which is why the advisory. You’re just trying to be argumentative.
Not really. You just implied something in the data changed. That is not really accurate and the presentation from the ACIP was literally in the context of mRNA availability.
“Due to both higher vaccine effectiveness of mRNA vaccines and severity of safety issues with the Janssen vaccine, in the setting of widely available mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the US, the benefit/risk balance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is more favorable than for Janssen COVID-19 vaccines”
What changed since their review in April was that the mRNA vaccines were not widely available.
No, that is not true. All three have been available since March or even before that. The vast majority of people have taken one of the mRNA's since all three were released.
I'm not just making this up. These are their words, not mine.
Their analysis from April showed that JJ was needed at the time because not having JJ would impact the availability of mRNA vaccines and delay overall vaccination goals resulting in many more hospitalizations and deaths. Meaning the benefits outweighed the risks of JJ. Now that there is an abundant supply of mRNA vaccines, that is no longer the case. JJ still preferred over no vaccine, but the mRNA vaccines have a better overall risk profile.
doesnt the data in blood clots show there is a higher liklihood in moderna vaccines?
i remember the jj scare and it went away because more data came out that some of the mrna had slightly higher risk of blood clot. then the narrative changed to "well its less of a risk than covid"
as someone who got the jj, whats your plan for the booster?
And my point is that risk profiles can change over time based on the adverse events
Sure, that can happen. Just not really the case here.
Instances of Blood clots with JJ through December occurred at about the same rate as they were occurring in April, and they all occur within weeks of getting the vaccine.
In April based on the number of blood clots that occurred at the time, you would expect about 32 additional instances of blood clots over their next 8.6 million shots. There were 29 additional instances of blood clots in those next 8.6 million shots.
The risk profile did not really change.
Nope. I read the CDC presentation from yesterday.
Risk profile didn't really change.
This is right from their presentation.
Timeline of Janssen COVID-19 vaccine benefit-risk review
April 2021 - Limited supply of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
December 2021 - No longer in the setting of limited mRNA COVID-19 vaccine supply in the US
I give up…they continue to collect adverse data. There are more clots reported. They made an advisory with recommendations because of that. If they didn’t think recording adverse events wasn’t important they wouldn’t, and they certainly would have made this advisory change.
