Coronavirus in Massachusetts (fence, health, rating)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

It would only be the "next best thing" if you had a personal investment in the success of the vaccines. For everyone else, it would be equally as good. We just want the f***ing thing done with.

Sure. Well, except for the fact that natural infection carries with it a significant risk of serious infection, hospitalization, and death whereas the vaccines do not. But I guess to some people that could be considered "equally as good."

[NewfieMama]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/healt...red/index.html

Saw this in the news yesterday about how J&J is no longer recommended if Moderna/Pfizer are available.

I'm a woman under 50 who got the J&J vaccine and I definitely took the blood clotting data into account.

I've also been very vocal about how I was hesitant to get a vaccine right away because a.) I had covid earlier in the year and had no symptoms (nor do I have long haul symptoms) so for me personally, a vaccine isn't going to keep me out of a hospital. I'm not at risk of having severe symptoms. and b.) I simply wanted MORE data about the vaccines. Yes, I wanted to follow science, but the lack of any long-term data made me uneasy.

Ultimately I got the vaccine because even though it doesn't stop COVID transmission, even if it reduces the chances of transmission that is a win.

I feel like I'm speaking for many of those who are still on the fence about vaccines (not the complete anti-vaxxers, those are a lost cause), but for those who are uneasy about the "newness" of the vaccine, this kind of news is what is unnerving. Are the chances of getting a blood clot still incredibly tiny? Yes. But nothing has changed about this vaccine OR the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines, yet new data is causing the CDC to change its recommendation. It leaves those who feel there isn't enough data thinking "well what else hasn't been uncovered if this info didn't come out in the trials?"

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Sure. Well, except for the fact that natural infection carries with it a significant risk of serious infection, hospitalization, and death whereas the vaccines do not. But I guess to some people that could be considered "equally as good."

Yes, there is that. So far, there is no Covid-19 variant that is as safe as the vaccines, despite what the conspiracy crowd may say.

[in_newengland]

I'm surprised that anyone who'd had two shots would think they were still protected. Everyone knows by now that the shots wear off and you need the booster. But I guess that's too much trouble and we, as a society, have become lazy and spoiled. We didn't have to suffer through The Depression, WWII, and a lot of people don't remember the polio epidemics. We've had it relatively easy. It takes some work to keep up the fight and some discipline to not give up.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by NewfieMama

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/healt...red/index.html

Saw this in the news yesterday about how J&J is no longer recommended if Moderna/Pfizer are available.

I'm a woman under 50 who got the J&J vaccine and I definitely took the blood clotting data into account.

I've also been very vocal about how I was hesitant to get a vaccine right away because a.) I had covid earlier in the year and had no symptoms (nor do I have long haul symptoms) so for me personally, a vaccine isn't going to keep me out of a hospital. I'm not at risk of having severe symptoms. and b.) I simply wanted MORE data about the vaccines. Yes, I wanted to follow science, but the lack of any long-term data made me uneasy.

Ultimately I got the vaccine because even though it doesn't stop COVID transmission, even if it reduces the chances of transmission that is a win.

I feel like I'm speaking for many of those who are still on the fence about vaccines (not the complete anti-vaxxers, those are a lost cause), but for those who are uneasy about the "newness" of the vaccine, this kind of news is what is unnerving. Are the chances of getting a blood clot still incredibly tiny? Yes. But nothing has changed about this vaccine OR the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines, yet new data is causing the CDC to change its recommendation. It leaves those who feel there isn't enough data feeling like "well what else hasn't been uncovered if this info didn't come out in the trials?"

But, blood clotting was already identified as a risk, albeit an uncommon one, what, 8+ months ago? And they're saying that the risk of death due to blood clotting is higher than estimated earlier, but the current data suggest a rate of 0.57 per million - still extremely low. And the CDC isn't revoking their approval of the J&J vaccine, but they now are saying clearly that the mRNA vaccines, which also have better efficacy, are preferable. Why does this strike you as a big surprise? Honestly, to me, things look very much as they did 8 months ago.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by NewfieMama

I feel like I'm speaking for many of those who are still on the fence about vaccines (not the complete anti-vaxxers, those are a lost cause), but for those who are uneasy about the "newness" of the vaccine, this kind of news is what is unnerving. Are the chances of getting a blood clot still incredibly tiny? Yes. But nothing has changed about this vaccine OR the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines, yet new data is causing the CDC to change its recommendation. It leaves those who feel there isn't enough data thinking "well what else hasn't been uncovered if this info didn't come out in the trials?"

There are meds that have been around 10, 20, 30+ years where the recommendations change. That's how science works. It never ends.

[NewfieMama]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

But, blood clotting was already identified as a risk, albeit an uncommon one, what, 6+ months ago? And they're saying that the risk of death due to blood clotting is higher than estimated earlier, but the current data suggest a rate of 0.57 per million - still extremely low. And the CDC isn't revoking their approval of the J&J vaccine, but they now are saying clearly that the mRNA vaccines, which also have better efficacy, are preferable. Why does this strike you as a big surprise?

It's not a big surprise, but more data has created a change in the recommendation. So even though nothing about the vaccine has changed, the outcome is "this isn't as safe as we thought. We're not taking it off the market, but we're no longer recommending you get it." Better that than to brush data under the rug, but it makes people wonder if more issues could be uncovered.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Sure. Well, except for the fact that natural infection carries with it a significant risk of serious infection, hospitalization, and death whereas the vaccines do not. But I guess to some people that could be considered "equally as good."

OK, but to be fair, the hypothetical included, in his words, "killing very few."

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by NewfieMama

It's not a big surprise, but more data has created a change in the recommendation. So even though nothing about the vaccine has changed, the outcome is "this isn't as safe as we thought. We're not taking it off the market, but we're no longer recommending you get it." Better that than to brush data under the rug, but it makes people wonder if more issues could be uncovered.

Yes, there has been a change in recommendation, but there hasn't been a big adjustment to the perceived risk/reward tradeoff for the J&J vaccines versus not getting vaccinated. It's more that we have two other good choices that have a slightly cleaner side effect profile and better efficacy as well, plus we probably have greater availability of the mRNA doses than we did earlier... so we're going to recommend them over the J&J vaccine now. They're not saying "Don't get the J&J, OMG, it's unsafe!" - it's still greatly preferred to a course of disease, and still quite safe. But with additional data, they now see that the mRNA vaccines are a better choice. To me this is kind a *shrug* moment, not an alarming one.

P.S. I have seen Dr Fauci make adjustments to what he's saying over the past year+ as more data come out, and some people say "OMG, he's been lying!" or "OMG, he doesn't know what he's talking about!"... and I have just been absolutely baffled by those kinds of reactions as well.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

P.S. I have seen Dr Fauci make adjustments to what he's saying over the past year+ as more data come out, and some people say "OMG, he's been lying!" or "OMG, he doesn't know what he's talking about!"... and I have just been absolutely baffled by those kinds of reactions as well.

It seems people aren't taught the scientific method anymore.