Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

[Dean Pomerleau]

52 minutes ago, Gordo said:

I'm excited to be scheduled for vaccination this weekend.

Congrats Gordo. My wife and I got our first dose of the Pfizer vaccine a couple weeks ago and go back next week for our second. No side effects so far other than minor arm pain. My daughter got the J&J shot about a month ago in rural Missouri. She's only 23 and without any pre-existing conditions, but pharmacies were desperate to find anyone in rural Missouri willing to get the vaccine, so she got a dose at the end of the day after they had finished all their other appointments.

Speaking of which, I wonder if there is anyone around here who is not planning to get one of the vaccines when it becomes available for them?  Khurram (obviously) comes to mind and perhaps Ron, given how dismissive he's been about the seriousness of covid relative to the flu...

--Dean

[Dean Pomerleau]

Thanks for sharing your perspective DHL. I too am in my 50s in very good health, but we differ markedly in our assessment of the benefits vs. risks of the vaccine. For me it is a combination of not wanting to get infected myself and not wanting to infect others (especially elderly / compromised folks) if I do get infected.

I wonder about Tom's perspective. He always is very thorough when it comes to this type of assessment. Tom, are you out there?

--Dean

[Gordo]

FWIW, the reasons I wanted the J&J vaccine are:

1) Only one jab (all else being equal, that's a plus), less risk of someone screwing up the procedure (injecting into bloodstream for example), only shoving a needle through your muscle tissue once has to be better than twice, haha.

2) Much lower reported side effects vs. the other vaccines (especially after second jab with Pfizer/Moderna which can be pretty harsh, many of my wife's colleagues had to call out sick from work after the second jab)

3) J&J vaccine showed an impressive 100% efficacy against moderate to severe covid in trials after 49 days post injection, even in countries with the worst variant strains (South Africa, Brazil).  It was also tested in more rigorous settings than the other vaccines.

4) J&J vaccine can be stored in a normal refrigerator unlike the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, this makes it less likely to become compromised.

5) J&J vaccine is NOT an mRNA vaccine (this is not a concern to me, but obviously it is to some people like DHL above).

This was all discussed on Medcram for anyone interested: 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by Gordo

[Todd Allen]

6 hours ago, Gordo said:

FWIW, the reasons I wanted the J&J vaccines are:

I read the J&J vaccine while not an mRNA vaccine, it uses a viral vector, but still only produces a single spike protein of the sars-cov-2 virus.  So while desirable for the reasons you mention it wouldn't surprise me if come next year one will still be advised to get another shot of a revised vaccine for protection against the latest strains.

I just saw my primary care doc and I was somewhat surprised to be offered a choice of vaccines including the J&J, surprised because supposedly here in Chicago vaccine availability is still limited to over 60, essential workers and those with high risk conditions.  I declined the offer despite believing any vaccine is a lower risk option than getting the virus because I am offended by the lack of quality data and balanced informed discussion regarding covid-19, vaccines, risks, restrictions, etc.  She tried to scare me with tales of bad covid-19 outcomes but for the past 5 years I've put great effort into maximizing my health and fitness and feel more robust and resilient than I've ever been in my life and I'm confident enough to accept whatever comes my way should I be wrong.

[Gordo]

8 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

it wouldn't surprise me if come next year one will still be advised to get another shot of a revised vaccine for protection against the latest strains.

I fully expect that, regardless of the vaccine (not specific to J&J), see: 

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210330/where-do-covid-vaccines-stand-against-the-variants

8 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

I am offended by the lack of quality data and balanced informed discussion regarding covid-19, vaccines, risks, restrictions, etc. 

So you declined a vaccination because you have concern that it will harm you, but you do not have as much concern that covid will harm you?  Do you have any concern that if vacination rates are low, covid will be with us forever, and eventually (when you are older) covid has a good chance of killing you?  I would like to see it eradicated now instead, but I'm not sure that is a realistic possibility.

I think the vaccine risks and side effects are very well documented.  You can see all of the reported incidents in VAERS.  Biggest risk is an allergic reaction, but you'd have about the same risk of that as from eating a new food, also they monitor everyone for 15 minutes after injection and can treat these rare cases. 

I know some wingnuts will look at the VAERS data and misinterpret it also.  In that medcram video I linked to, he said the reported side effects were WORSE in the placebo group!  Haha. There is a 3% chance anyone over the age of 70 will die within the next year in general.  So if we give 10 million over age 70 people the vaccine, we would expect about 300,000 to die within a year, for reasons unrelated to covid or the vaccine.  I would also expect people over 70 who do NOT get vaccinated will die at a higher rate than those who do get vaccinated, but I don't think that data will ever be captured since as far as I know, we are not tracking who is getting vaccinated (maybe we should for data science purposes, but the conspiracy wingnuts would go ballistic).

[Todd Allen]

4 hours ago, Gordo said:

So you declined a vaccination because you have concern that it will harm you, but you do not have as much concern that covid will harm you?

What I wrote was "I declined the offer despite believing any vaccine is a lower risk option than getting the virus".  Or I could restate that for you as I believe covid is more dangerous than the vaccines.

4 hours ago, Gordo said:

Do you have any concern that if vacination rates are low, covid will be with us forever, and eventually (when you are older) covid has a good chance of killing you?

Covid will be with us for a long time to come.  I suspect high vaccination rates with vaccines targeting a single spike protein create more opportunity for the virus to escape the limited immunity these vaccines create increasing the rate at which the most vulnerable will lose the protection afforded by the current vaccines.  I see it as similar athough clearly not identical to the problem of over use of antibiotics which creates evolutionary pressure accelerating the process of development of resistance to our antibiotics.  In each case I think it is best to use our tools to protect the most vulnerable instead of squandering them where they are little needed.

[Ron Put]

On 4/9/2021 at 10:26 AM, Dean Pomerleau said:

Speaking of which, I wonder if there is anyone around here who is not planning to get one of the vaccines when it becomes available for them?  Khurram (obviously) comes to mind and perhaps Ron, given how dismissive he's been about the seriousness of covid relative to the flu...

Dean, as I have posted several times above, I have been vaccinated for a while now. I was part of the Novavax trial (had to unblind myself a couple of weeks ago because of travel).

I personally opt for getting vaccines generally and due to travel, have been vaccinated against quite a few more diseases than the average person. I also get my flu shot every year, as I am aware that the flu can result in death even in healthy people (and in fact kills a lot more children and under 35s than Covid does). The flu shot also prevents cardiovascular and other complications that linger after recovery, even if they don't make the headlines as the very similar Covid-19 post-recovery effects.

Also, you are entirely missing the point. I am not dismissive of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Covid-19 pandemic is serious, but its mortality rate is akin to the flu pandemic of 1969. Yet the 1969 pandemic was not politicized and today the vast majority of those who lived through it do not even remember that there was a pandemic. Similarly, forgotten is the 1957 N2N2 pandemic.

What I am opposed to, and disturbed by, the Left's politicization of the pandemic and its use to suppress opposition and free speech, and to use the destruction of the economy and the fear to create "enemies," and to usher in dramatic changes to US governance and society. In addition, the pandemic is being used to forge a worrying relationship between a single party and the dominant US corporations and private institutions, not all that dissimilar to what is currently seen in China or Russia, or in Germany during the 1930s. We have entered a period of "interesting times," and history shows that often during such periods small, determined and organized minorities are able to impose their ideologies/beliefs on whole societies, and force them to conform.

[Gordo]

3 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

I suspect high vaccination rates with vaccines targeting a single spike protein create more opportunity for the virus to escape the limited immunity these vaccines create increasing the rate at which the most vulnerable will lose the protection afforded by the current vaccines

That's an interesting perspective, so by this logic, is it fair to say you believe mass vaccination will make the pandemic even worse?  Given the preliminary results so far, I disagree, in fact I think it's actually the opposite. The more unvaccinated people out there, the greater the chances of mutation and spread over time. Even the J&J vaccine seems to stop the spread of the worst known variants. I'm optimistic that we can eradicate it with mass vaccination, but only time will tell. 

 

1 hour ago, Ron Put said:

What I am opposed to, and disturbed by, the Left's politicization of the pandemic and its use to suppress opposition and free speech, and to use the destruction of the economy and the fear to create "enemies," and to usher in dramatic changes to US governance and society. In addition, the pandemic is being used to forge a worrying relationship between a single party and the dominant US corporations and private institutions,

I share those concerns. And things just seem to be heading further off tilt/unhinged with time. 

[Todd Allen]

On 4/10/2021 at 3:34 PM, Gordo said:

That's an interesting perspective, so by this logic, is it fair to say you believe mass vaccination will make the pandemic even worse?

There are narratives being pushed that mass vaccination will eradicate this virus and that the virus emerged from animal hosts well adapted to spread throughout humanity.  I find these two ideas somewhat at odds.  If the virus resides in a non-human animal population vaccinating humans will not eradicate the virus.

I would be more comfortable with mass vaccination using a whole virome vaccine such as the Russians have.  I think it is possible that mass vaccination using vaccines targeting a single protein may drag this out.  This is something new and it remains to be seen how it will turn out.  It is difficult to make predictions without good data on things such as:

How many people have already developed immunity through exposure to the actual virus?

How long does immunity last after viral exposure and how does this immunity compare to that from vaccinations targeting a single protein especially with respect to new variants of the virus?

What are the effects of vaccinating people who already had developed natural immunity through viral exposure?

It bothers me that there is little to no discussion of such topics in major media and it is becoming increasingly difficult to pose and discuss such questions via dominant platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Todd Allen

[AlPater]

19 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

immunity last after viral exposure and how does this immunity compare to that from vaccinations targeting a single protein especially with respect to new variants of the virus

Variants may proportionately selected in the viral population by vaccination:

 

APRIL 11, 202110:18 AM; UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO
South African variant may evade protection from Pfizer vaccine, Israeli study says
By Maayan Lubell
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-israel-study/south-african-variant-may-evade-protection-from-pfizer-vaccine-israeli-study-says-idUSKBN2BX0JZ?il=0

[Dean Pomerleau]

20 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

I would be more comfortable with mass vaccination using a whole virome vaccine such as the Russians have.  I think it is possible that mass vaccination using vaccines targeting a single protein may drag this out.

Your speculation seems possible, but I don't think you are right about the Russian Sputnik vaccine. From this BMJ article:

What is Sputnik V?

Russia’s first approved vaccine was developed and produced entirely domestically and has a name intentionally invoking the space race of the 1950s. ...

[Russian] researchers used common cold viruses in their vaccine prototype. Notably, they opted for two different adenovirus vectors (rAd26 and rAd5) delivered separately in a first and second dose, 21 days apart.1 Using the same adenovirus for the two doses could lead to the body developing an immune response against the vector and destroying it when the second dose is administered. Two different vectors reduces the chance of this.

To make the vaccine, the adenoviruses are combined with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which prompts the body to make an immune response to it.

So it appears the Russian vaccine isn't 'whole virome', but targets one spike protein like most of the other vaccines.

In contrast, according to another BMJ article, the Chinese Sinovac vaccine is a 'whole virome' vaccine, but it's effectiveness is being called into question both by other countries (e.g. Brazil, where effectiveness was ~50% against symptomatic covid-19) and just yesterday by Chinese officials themselves, although discussion about his comment was mostly censored on the Chinese internet according to this Washington Post article. 

Relevant quotes regarding mRNA vaccines as a more effective alternative to their from the same Chinese official who said the current Chinese vaccines “don’t have very high protection rates”:

“It’s now under formal consideration whether we should use different vaccines from different technical lines for the immunization process,” Gao said.

Gao gave no details of possible changes in strategy but cited mRNA as a possibility.

“Everyone should consider the benefits mRNA vaccines can bring for humanity,” Gao said. “We must follow it carefully and not ignore it just because we already have several types of vaccines already.”

Gao did not respond to a phone call requesting further comment. But another CDC official said developers are working on mRNA-based vaccines.

“The mRNA vaccines developed in our country have also entered the clinical trial stage,” said the official, Wang Huaqing. He gave no timeline for possible use.

Gao previously questioned the safety of mRNA vaccines. He was quoted by the official Xinhua News Agency as saying in December he couldn’t rule out negative side effects because they were being used for the first time on healthy people.

So granted, an effective whole virome vaccine might be more effective at preventing new deadly virus strains from evolving that can evade single spike targeted vaccines. But it looks like the Chinese whole virome vaccine isn't a great solution either and besides, it will never become available in the US anyway. In addition, we've already seen covid is quite capable of evolving more virulent, somewhat vaccine-resistant strains when allowed to run rampant through unvaccinated societies, not to mention the fact that mRNA vaccines are much easier to modify and deploy should dangerous new vaccine-evading strains evolve.

So while our options are less than optimal, it seems to me that the right choice personally (as a healthy middle-aged adult) and for society as a whole is to get whatever of the approved vaccines is available to you at this point.

But I guess your reluctance shouldn't surprise me given your expressed willingness to buck other, seemingly rational medical recommendations, like it being a good idea to keep your LDL cholesterol below 500 mg/dL. 🙂

--Dean

[Sibiriak]

1 hour ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

So it appears the Russian vaccine isn't 'whole virome',

Sputnik V is not,  but the  Russian CoviVac under development apparently is,  as  described previously  here. Of course, it's too early to say how effective it will be.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Sibiriak

[Gordo]

21 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

If the virus resides in a non-human animal population vaccinating humans will not eradicate the virus.

True, but sending it back to bats only (or Wuhan labs only) would be a pretty good outcome 😉

 

[Todd Allen]

4 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

So while our options are less than optimal, it seems to me that the right choice personally (as a healthy middle-aged adult) and for society as a whole is to get whatever of the approved vaccines is available to you at this point.

So far the only vaccines available in the US have emergency use authorization none have yet completed the full testing process to receive FDA approval.  The tested efficacy of these vaccines is in preventing severe Covid-19 resulting in hospitalization or death over a time period of a few months post vaccination.  They have not been tested for other purposes such as preventing mild to asymptomatic infection or reducing infectiousness and spread.  Do you have any data showing a societal benefit to vaccinating people at minimal risk of severe sickness or death especially at this time of year when the risk of severe sickness and death for everyone is rapidly falling?

 

[Todd Allen]

4 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

But I guess your reluctance shouldn't surprise me given your expressed willingness to buck other, seemingly rational medical recommendations, like it being a good idea to keep your LDL cholesterol below 500 mg/dL. 🙂

I admit to being contrarian but my HDL has risen proportionally with my LDL and my triglycerides have fallen dramatically.  Many consider those more relevant than LDL.  And not just for heart disease, I may be bullet proofed against severe covid too!

Low HDL and high triglycerides predict COVID-19 severity

Quote

The combination of low HDL levels and high triglyceride levels, which is referred to as atherogenic dyslipidaemia, is associated with qualitative changes in LDL particles that lead to an increase in the levels of small and dense LDL particles. This pattern is driven by insulin resistance and usually associated with diabetes and obesity. However, in our patients, the body mass index and the prevalence rates of diabetes and obesity were similar between groups with a mild or severe COVID-19 evolution.

Strong scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that both inflammatory states and infectious diseases are associated with striking changes in lipid metabolism²¹. The general pattern is exactly as observed in our study: low HDL-C levels and normal or even high levels of triglycerides for the clinical context. LDL-C levels may be maintained or also reduced but are generally associated with an increased presence of smaller LDL particles. Although insulin resistance plays an important role in these lipid abnormalities, the pathophysiology of these modifications is more complex. A key enzyme participating in these alterations is lipoprotein lipase¹⁵ (LPL). In the presence of inflammation, several mediators interfere with glucose and lipid metabolism²². Several cytokines and inflammatory mediators that are overexpressed during COVID-19 may interact directly with LPL or its regulatory proteins, such as apo CII²³. Among these proteins, several products delivered by activated macrophages, such as tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-1, IL-11, and Interferon-γ^24, 25, as well as products derived from bacteria, such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS) associated with septicaemia, and modified lipoproteins such as oxidized LDL or lysophosphatidylcholine have been shown to inhibit LPL activity^15, 21, 26.

Lower LPL activity results in a decreased conversion of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL) to LDL, leading to high TG and low HDL levels. Moreover, altered activity of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) leading to smaller LDL particles and lower HDL concentrations has also been described and associated with a poor infection prognosis^27, 28. Although some of these pathways may partially explain the low HDL levels, other factors, including the inhibition of apo A1 synthesis or increased HDL clearance due to the uptake of inflammatory mediators such as serum amyloid A (SAA) by HDL, must be taken into consideration¹¹.

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Todd Allen

[Ron Put]

On 4/10/2021 at 4:05 PM, Todd Allen said:

How long does immunity last after viral exposure and how does this immunity compare to that from vaccinations targeting a single protein especially with respect to new variants of the virus?

What are the effects of vaccinating people who already had developed natural immunity through viral exposure?

It should last for quite a while, given that coronaviruses are not prone to rapid mutations, as are for instance the influenza strains. The variants are to be expected, as so far Covid-19 has behaved no differently than the other coronaviruses that have entered circulation over the last few decades. It's is likely that the shots will have to be tweaked every few years to maintain effectiveness, but compare this to influenza, where the vaccine is changed every year and is generally much less effective than the Covid-19 vaccines. But this coronavirus is going to circulate over the foreseeable future, and yes, some number of mostly older people will die every year, as it will be another part of the "flu."

What's lost in all the alarmist noise in the media is that the vaccines trigger T-cell reactions, just like from getting sick with the actual disease. That's where the bulk of the immunity will come from, and T-cells are good at recognizing reasonably close variants. And as coronaviruses are not vast mutators, immunity should last for a while.

 

On 4/10/2021 at 4:05 PM, Todd Allen said:

It bothers me that there is little to no discussion of such topics in major media and it is becoming increasingly difficult to pose and discuss such questions via dominant platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

This is much scarier than the pandemic, in the longer run. And it's purely political, with the woke Left using the pandemic and the fear to consolidate power. As to the monopolies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter, they conform, because often dictatorships are better for monopolies than messy democracies.

[Dean Pomerleau]

9 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

Do you have any data showing a societal benefit to vaccinating people at minimal risk of severe sickness or death especially at this time of year when the risk of severe sickness and death for everyone is rapidly falling?

Not directly, but previously hard hit countries that have vaccinated a large fraction their population (Israel, UK and the US) seem to be doing a lot better than countries, many of them previously hard hit also but where the vaccine efforts are lagging (Brazil, India, France, Turkey) and covid cases are soaring. 

--Dean 

[Todd Allen]

4 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Not directly, but previously hard hit countries that have vaccinated a large fraction their population (Israel, UK and the US) seem to be doing a lot better than countries, many of them previously hard hit also but where the vaccine efforts are lagging (Brazil, India, France, Turkey) and covid cases are soaring.

I've long believed reported case rates are of modest value as they are so dependent on who is getting tested and the tests being used.  Hospitalizations and death statistics are more meaningful.  Those should be hugely influenced by vaccination as that is what the vaccines were tested to do, reduce hospitalization and death.  But this benefit will be largely achieved by vaccinating the  fraction of the population at significant risk of severe covid.

My risk of severe covid is low and I should still be ineligible for a vaccine as distribution is currently restricted here to certain groups none of which I am a member.  There are still people desperate to get the vaccine waiting for the opportunity.  To take a limited availability vaccine dose for which I have little need that others want strikes me as anti-social.  If my purpose is to take a vaccine for the societal benefit of reducing the spread I would want to choose a  vaccine well suited if not best suited to that purpose.  But so far I'm unaware of any data on which to base that choice.  People here are being told to continue wearing masks and social distancing after vaccination suggesting there is little confidence that vaccination is sufficiently mitigating risk of spread.

[Dean Pomerleau]

2 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

If my purpose is to take a vaccine for the societal benefit of reducing the spread I would want to choose a  vaccine well suited if not best suited to that purpose.  But so far I'm unaware of any data on which to base that choice. 

Studies conducted so far in Israel and the US have found the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines appears to reduce infections by 85-90% as discussed here. Vaccinated people who avoid getting infected will also avoid spreading the virus. From that article:

Two doses of the vaccines [Pfizer or Moderna] provide as much as 90% protection against infection, according to data from U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study published Monday. Earlier clinical trials had established that the shots also prevent illness, hospitalizations, and deaths.

The CDC studied a group of about 4,000 front-line workers, including health-care personnel, first responders, teachers and service workers from mid-December to mid-March as vaccines rolled out widely.

The participants were tested for Covid weekly and surveyed for reports of symptoms. The researchers compared the frequency of Covid infections before and after vaccinations to estimate how effective the shots were at preventing SARS-CoV-2 spread, regardless of whether people felt sick or not.

Two weeks after the first dose, the shots appeared to prevent 80% of infections; that rose to 90% two weeks after the second dose, when people were considered fully immunized.

The study adds to evidence that new vaccines made with messenger RNA technology actually reduce the spread of the virus in real-world conditions. An earlier study in Israel found a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine reduced infections by as much as 85%.

The study is “tremendously encouraging” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a briefing, and new findings “underscore the importance of getting both of the recommended doses of the vaccine in order to get the greatest level of protection against COVID-19, especially as our concerns about variants escalate.”.

That looks like pretty favorable evidence to me. But something tells me you won't be convinced...

--Dean

[Todd Allen]

8 minutes ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

That looks like pretty favorable evidence to me. But something tells me you won't be convinced...

Looks encouraging.  I may be more convinced after reading the actual studies as media stories on scientific papers are notorious for overlooking important details.   I also don't feel compelled to jump to conclusions quicker than the CDC which as far as I know has not yet reversed guidance for the vaccinated to continue masking and distancing.

[Dean Pomerleau]

7 minutes ago, Todd Allen said:

Looks encouraging.  I may be more convinced after reading the actual studies as media stories on scientific papers are notorious for overlooking important details

A very reasonable attitude. Have at it:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm#T2_down

To save you and others the trouble, here is the relevant table with numbers of infections and confidence intervals on the protection afforded by one or two doses of the vaccines:

As you can see, there were 161 infections in the unvaccinated group vs. 3 infections in the fully vaccinated group during the course of the study.  If you adjust for person-days of possible exposure, it would be 161 vs. 5 infections in the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups respectively.

--Dean

[Dean Pomerleau]

1 hour ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

As you can see, there were 161 infections in the unvaccinated group vs. 3 infections in the fully vaccinated group during the course of the study.  If you adjust for person-days of possible exposure, it would be 161 vs. 5 infections in the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups respectively.

On the other hand, the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine doesn't look nearly as effective at preventing asymptomatic infections as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines discussed above. From this BMJ article:

The study, published in the Lancet, found that [Oxford/Astrazeneca] vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic transmission was 59% in the group that received a half dose followed by a standard dose (seven cases among 1120 participants versus 17 cases among 1127 participants in the control group), but just 4% in the group that received two standard doses (22 among 2168 participants versus 23 among 2223 for the control).

So if your goal is to avoid infection and potential transmission of covid to others, that would be one more reason to shy away from the Oxford / Astrazeneca vaccine in favor of Pfizer or Moderna if you are in a country where you can choose. 

I don't know that there is any data on the J&J vaccine yet regarding its ability to prevent infections.

--Dean

[Gordo]

Of course 2 days after I get the J&J vaccine it's use is now halted, haha:

Don't 'overinterpret' decision to pause J&J Covid vaccine over rare clotting issue, Dr. Scott Gottlieb says

 

 

I'm wondering if this could be that "accidentally went directly into blood stream" issue discussed previously in this thread?  (the FDA expert thinks its just a very rare auto-immune response).  6 cases out of 6.8 million? I wonder what the odds are on non-vaccinated people getting a blood clot? This seems like a pretty weak reason to stop using the vaccine. 

UPDATE: The question about the background rate of these conditions is addressed in this morning's press conference:

 

around the 20 minute mark, background rate for this type of blood clot is 2-14 people per 1 million population, but that is with normal platelet count, the unusual thing here apparently is the combination with low platelet count.  They did not see such cases with the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines.  A doctor on the call followed up at the end and asked "Well what's the background rate for people with low platelet count?" and the answer was "We don't know" 😉 but severe headaches and leg pains that start 6 days to 21 days after receiving the vaccine should lead a doc to check for low platelet counts and treat accordingly.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Gordo

[Todd Allen]

On 4/12/2021 at 10:54 AM, Dean Pomerleau said:

A very reasonable attitude. Have at it:

An initial glance suggests to me the study provides strong evidence of reduced infection rates with vaccination but the reported statistics may be grossly misleading.  The new case rate according to Worldometer was more than 4 times greater when the trial commenced in December then when it ended in March.  Everyone started off unvaccinated and people were vaccinated on their own schedules throughout the study period.  Thus the lower infection rates per vaccinated person day are significantly affected by the plummeting national infection rate.   There were 78,902 fully vaccinated person days among 2,479 people, so less than 32 days of vaccination on average.  Among all participants both vaccinated and unvaccinated in the study there were only 2 hospitalizations and 0 deaths which when compared to the greater than half million US deaths due to covid-19 gives a sense of the small size and short duration of the study. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Todd Allen

[Dean Pomerleau]

5 hours ago, Gordo said:

around the 20 minute mark, background rate for this type of blood clot is 2-14 people per 1 million population.

Something important is missing from this implied comparison - namely time. In the two weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine, 6 people out of 6.8 million developed cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT).

Based on this paper, it appears the baseline rate of CVT is 2-5 cases per million people per year. Therefore in a population of 6.8 million, you'd expect to see many fewer than six CVT events in 2 weeks (~1/25th of a year).  Specifically, you'd expect in the neighborhood of 6.8 * 3.5 / 25 = 0.95 cases of CVT in two weeks, or about a single  case. So seeing six cases in a population of 6.8 million in two weeks is around 6x more frequent than the baseline rate. 

It's still a very rare occurance, but since the people who developed CVT after the J&J vaccine were relatively young women with relatively low risk of serious harm from covid and low baseline risk of CVT, it's understandable why the CDC and FDA would be concerned.

--Dean