Poll of the Day > Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine linked to blood clots as well.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://tinyurl.com/yftsyv7e
(NY Times article about the vaccine)

So along with the AZ vaccine this one too is linked to blood clots. Glad I decided not to get it.

6 people out of nearly 7 million people got a blood clot in the weeks following the vaccine. They aren't even sure if the vaccine played any part in it and even if it did that is over a 1 in a million chance of it happening.

It's not "linked" to anything yet. They are being "overly cautious" and are pausing the shot to investigate these 6 cases to see if the vaccine was related and why...

The whole thing is just dumb. Shouldn't have been pulled.

---

Sequiro posted...

6 people out of nearly 7 million people got a blood clot in the weeks following the vaccine. They aren't even sure if the vaccine played any part in it and even if it did that is over a 1 in a million chance of it happening.

It's not "linked" to anything yet. They are being "overly cautious" and are pausing the shot to investigate these 6 cases to see if the vaccine was related and why...

The whole thing is just dumb. Shouldn't have been pulled.

I hope you realize you sound exactly like Trump did at the beginning of the pandemic trying it o downplay this. Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

Yes, politicizing issues and labeling others as liberal for applying critical thinking with knowledge. American values at its finest.

---

They're distracting from the fact that thousands of people have had adverse effects and died from the Pfizer and Moderna ones. This is a story manufactured to make them look like they're being cautious

OhhhJa posted...

They're distracting from the fact that thousands of people have had adverse effects and died from the Pfizer and Moderna ones.

Do you have a source for that claim?

---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79402894

---

Mead posted...

Do you have a source for that claim?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/cdc-to-investigate-death-of-nebraska-man-who-received-covid-vaccine-dose.html

OhhhJa posted...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/cdc-to-investigate-death-of-nebraska-man-who-received-covid-vaccine-dose.html

One death is thousands?

---

Do I have to take another whole page of arguing with MartianManchild to point out he has a hard time reading stats?

---

MartianManchild posted...

I hope you realize you sound exactly like Trump did at the beginning of the pandemic trying it o downplay this. Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

This is a bad comparison.

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

Do I have to take another whole page of arguing with MartianManchild to point out he has a hard time reading stats?

Yes please do. It's always delicious.

---

OhhhJa posted...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/cdc-to-investigate-death-of-nebraska-man-who-received-covid-vaccine-dose.html

I think you have misunderstood the data. Theres nothing to suggest that any of those fatalities were a result from vaccination. Its more than possible than some of them were but the number is just showing the number of people who have received the vaccine AND THEN died. It doesnt mean the vaccine contributed to their death.

And the number makes sense considering millions and millions of people have been vaccinated over the last few months. That article even clarified that the 1170 deaths make up only 0.003% of vaccinated individuals. Statistics like that are bound to happen, especially considering that the first waves of vaccinations went towards high risk individuals that already suffer from chronic conditions and the elderly.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Yes please do. It's always delicious.

Sigh, I have actual homework to do XD.

I do enjoy reaching the point that nobody responds to me.

---

Why bother trying to inform ppl who have demonstrated they literally lack the capacity of understanding objective factual statistical points

---

America's inability to assess statistics and scientific data has already surpassed Onion levels.

My God.

---

MartianManchild posted...

I hope you realize you sound exactly like Trump did at the beginning of the pandemic trying it o downplay this. Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

I mean, the alternative is trying to pretend that Covid is less risky than these vaccines, which is clearly false. Even if we accept that "downplaying" is an accurate way to describe comparing statistics (which is highly questionable), it's consistent with empirical reality, so I'm not sure why you'd take issue with it.

---

Ever thought that it's more Trump-ish to paint an entire swathe of people with one judgement?

Oh right lmfao

omg anyone trying to explain this to me is a LIBERAL HYPOCRITE

oh wait are you downplaying the 563K COVID deaths in the USA? I need to think of a bad word to call you, pronto!

---

Eat Man posted...

America's inability to assess statistics and scientific data has already surpassed Onion levels.

My God.

It's in certain people's best interests that the gen pop is poorly educated, so what do you expect.

---

Jen0125 posted...

One death is thousands?

Someone didn't read the article I see

Mead posted...

Theres nothing to suggest that any of those fatalities were a result from vaccination.

You could make this same exact argument for a huge amount of the covid deaths tbh. Especially since the average age of covid deaths is 84

OhhhJa posted...

Someone didn't read the article I see

Of course not. Why would I read anything someone like you or OP post?

---

OhhhJa posted...

You could make this same exact argument for a huge amount of the covid deaths tbh. Especially since the average age of covid deaths is 84

uhh

except you decided to average one stat you're comparing to another that hasn't been averaged. pro statistician.

---

OhhhJa posted...

You could make this same exact argument for a huge amount of the covid deaths tbh. Especially since the average age of covid deaths is 84

It's okay guys, a fraction of the 3 million people that have died of Covid might have died from some other comorbidity instead. That's basically the same thing as there being no conclusive link between these vaccines and subsequent deaths, so we might as well blame the vaccine for murdering thousands.

---

OhhhJa posted...

You could make this same exact argument for a huge amount of the covid deaths tbh. Especially since the average age of covid deaths is 84

Except it was literally the cause of death. Medical professionals arent getting a commission or gold stars for the number of people that they care for dying under covid.

The facts are actually showing that covid deaths are very much underreported because of many cases where it wasnt certain that covid was the cause of death or if it just exacerbated other conditions. I mean just look at the shenanigans they pulled in NY under reporting all the nursing home deaths.

---

The thing that pisses me off about this -- and I said in the other topic -- is that the incidents involve very specific demographics. So instead of giving it to those people, why can't they just give it to everybody else?

And then fucking NPR was trying to spin this shit, pointing out that J&J only accounts for 5% of the vaccines given out so far, a ridiculous piece of propaganda and a perfect example of lying with statistics considering that the J&J came out much, much later than the others.

At any rate, like I also said in that topic, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't in some way linked to AZ contaminating the J&J vaccine at that facility where they were producing both.

---

Zeus posted...

The thing that pisses me off about this -- and I said in the other topic -- is that the incidents involve very specific demographics. So instead of giving it to those people, why can't they just give it to everybody else?

And then fucking NPR was trying to spin this shit, pointing out that J&J only accounts for 5% of the vaccines given out so far, a ridiculous piece of propaganda and a perfect example of lying with statistics considering that the J&J came out much, much later than the others.

At any rate, like I also said in that topic, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't in some way linked to AZ contaminating the J&J vaccine at that facility where they were producing both.

Why give it to everyone else if it may be dangerous in certain groups? A pause on distribution is the best way to proceed while further research is needed.

Zeus posted...

The thing that pisses me off about this -- and I said in the other topic -- is that the incidents involve very specific demographics. So instead of giving it to those people, why can't they just give it to everybody else?

Because they're trying to figure it out just how it works and they're erring on the side of caution to avoid endangering more people than they need to. In practice, they probably could ignore this issue entirely and keep giving it to everybody and it'd do several orders of magnitude more good than harm, but that's generally not the best attitude to approach pharmaceuticals with, especially when so many people are hesitant to get any of these vaccines. Until they iron out the details of the problem and can actually say for certain that it's only an issue in specific demographics, pulling it entirely is the best course of action.

Zeus posted...

And then f***ing NPR was trying to spin this s***, pointing out that J&J only accounts for 5% of the vaccines given out so far, a ridiculous piece of propaganda and a perfect example of lying with statistics considering that the J&J came out much, much later than the others.

Alternatively, only accounting for 5% of vaccines given out so far means pulling it isn't going to make a significant difference to the current vaccination rate trajectory, so people shouldn't worry about this compromising the whole process beyond recovery. But hey, let's call it propaganda (to... some end >.>), and not reassurance.

Zeus posted...

At any rate, like I also said in that topic, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't in some way linked to AZ contaminating the J&J vaccine at that facility where they were producing both.

And like I said in that topic (and a previous one where you blamed that one dude's serious rash on the same contamination), I'm still waiting for you to provide some sort of basis for this theory. The longer you go without doing so, the more reason I'm given to believe you have none.

Do you have stock in J&J or something? You seem personally offended by anything that might interfere with its ability to become the dominant vaccine: Europe's preference for AZ, blaming AZ for all of J&J's serious side effects, getting mad at NPR for "lying" about how many doses had been administered... I'm game for thinking critically and holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and whatnot, but you seem to be cheerleading for the J&J vaccine to an extent that I usually only see in console war arguments.

---

Bleuets posted...

Why give it to everyone else if it may be dangerous in certain groups? A pause on distribution is the best way to proceed while further research is needed.

...because there are always medicines/treatments that only dangerous for certain groups or harmful because of potential drug interactions. If you're not a member of that group or taking the other medication, you're fine.

adjl posted...

Alternatively, only accounting for 5% of vaccines given out so far means pulling it isn't going to make a significant difference to the current vaccination rate trajectory, so people shouldn't worry about this compromising the whole process beyond recovery. But hey, let's call it propaganda (to... some end >.>), and not reassurance.

And this is a great case-in-point of the impact when lying with statistics. Adjl here believes that the completely misleading 5% means that J&J isn't widely in use, overlooking that this is based on VACCINES GIVEN OUT SINCE THE BEGINNING. It's not 5% of what's being done now, it's 5% of what's been done SINCE THE START, including months where the J&J vaccine wasn't even out. So now because of this bogus statistic, he believes that it's not going to have much of a trajectory despite the fact that vaccines tend to have far more impact when they're available compared to when they're not available. And the J&J was one of the only two super-easily accessible vaccines.

adjl posted...

And like I said in that topic (and a previous one where you blamed that one dude's serious rash on the same contamination), I'm still waiting for you to provide some sort of basis for this theory. The longer you go without doing so, the more reason I'm given to believe you have none.

Do you have stock in J&J or something? You seem personally offended by anything that might interfere with its ability to become the dominant vaccine: Europe's preference for AZ, blaming AZ for all of J&J's serious side effects, getting mad at NPR for "lying" about how many doses had been administered... I'm game for thinking critically and holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and whatnot, but you seem to be cheerleading for the J&J vaccine to an extent that I usually only see in console war arguments.

If the AZ worked, I'd back that as well. J&J and AZ, on paper, are the two vaccines that make the most sense. They're one-dose, easily stored, easy transported, etc. I know that J&J has the mildest symptoms, although I assume that AZ is also far milder than Pfizer and Moderna.

However, AZ was being pushed by government bodies for political reasons which annoyed me right off the bat, it was clearly connected to a fatal condition, and -- what really pissed me off -- was that cross-contamination issue which fucked up the J&J vaccine. So not only is this dangerous vaccine pushed by political cronies harming people who take it, but it's fucking up other vaccines as well. The fact that you're not enraged by this makes me wonder if you have some personal stake in AZ. Maybe instead of asking about my investment portfolio, we should be questioning *your* financial ties?

Otherwise we know that the cross-contamination happened -- although I'm sure you and the other AZ proponents would prefer we didn't -- and these impacts seem to fit around the timeline. It's not hard to draw a line between the two.


---

I don't think Zeus is a real person.

---

I'll only correct adjl on one thing. Ideas aren't theories. Zeus has an idea, not a theory :p

---

Clench281 posted...

I don't think Zeus is a real person.

The irony in that statement is lost on no one... although I guess it's really more hypocrisy? Although would it even be that if somebody I've frequently accused of working a gimmick on that account turns around and, in retaliation, suggests that I'm not real?

ReturnOfFa posted... I'll only correct adjl on one thing. Ideas aren't theories. Zeus has an idea, not a theory :p

I'd argue that it's at least a hypothesis!

---

Oh no. My gimmick is understanding science and statistics. What a horrible thing to be accused of.

---

Clench281 posted...

Oh no. My gimmick is understanding science and statistics. What a horrible thing to be accused of.

Cute spin, but I'm talking your actual gimmick, not the other shit you pretend to try to get a rise out of people while keeping in-character.

---

You might we well call me Voldemort, because every time I ask you to explain what gimmick you mean, it miraculously turns into the gimmick-that-can't-be-named.

---

Zeus posted...

...because there are always medicines/treatments that only dangerous for certain groups or harmful because of potential drug interactions. If you're not a member of that group or taking the other medication, you're fine.

Until you determine for sure which groups it's safe/dangerous in, though, best practice is to suspend its use entirely while you look for that answer.

Zeus posted...

And this is a great case-in-point of the impact when lying with statistics. Adjl here believes that the completely misleading 5% means that J&J isn't widely in use, overlooking that this is based on VACCINES GIVEN OUT SINCE THE BEGINNING. It's not 5% of what's being done now, it's 5% of what's been done SINCE THE START, including months where the J&J vaccine wasn't even out. So now because of this bogus statistic, he believes that it's not going to have much of a trajectory despite the fact that vaccines tend to have far more impact when they're available compared to when they're not available. And the J&J was one of the only two super-easily accessible vaccines.

I completely understand the point you're trying to make, but you seem to have missed mine. Yes, taking J&J off the market is going to hurt overall vaccination rates, and by quite a bit more than the 5% share it currently represents. That said, because it only accounts for 5% of vaccines delivered to date, taking it off the market is only going to slow the current rate of vaccine delivery by 5% (approximately). It's going to slow the growth of that rate by a greater margin, but not the current rate.

Basically, vf=vi*0.95, af=ai*(some number smaller than 0.95). This has cost the vaccination campaign acceleration, not (more than 5% of) velocity. To that end, telling people that it accounts for 5% of the current vaccination rate informs them that things are going to continue roughly as they have, not be catastrophically set back such that everyone should panic. It does not mean that they're trying to convince people that it's better not to keep growing, which is the only possible objection I'm seeing in your ire here.

Zeus posted...

it was clearly connected to a fatal condition,

Except for the part where the association was not immediately clear, was still an incredibly remote risk even when it did become considered likely that there was a link, and the condition was quite rarely fatal. You make it sound like AZ killed a significant number of people, not that it has a side effect that's still orders of magnitude less dangerous than side effects on drugs that are currently on the market and you've shown no objection to (unless you've been complaining about how unhealthy birth control pills are and I've just missed it, which isn't impossible).

Zeus posted...

and -- what really pissed me off -- was that cross-contamination issue which f***ed up the J&J vaccine.

Which you keep mentioning, but not actually providing any concrete basis for believing it to be a major problem aside from accusing it of every issue that's arisen with J&J.

Zeus posted...

The fact that you're not enraged by this makes me wonder if you have some personal stake in AZ. Maybe instead of asking about my investment portfolio, we should be questioning *your* financial ties?

My ties are to providing sensible public health advice. My position has always been to wait until experts in the field have determined that the apparent side effects probably aren't mere coincidence, and even then I've continued to maintain that these side effects are such a remote risk that they shouldn't dissuade people from getting vaccinated. That's true for AZ, and it's true for J&J. I'm not sure why you're trying to insert a bias there, unless you have difficulty differentiating between disagreeing with you and being biased against the things you like.

Zeus posted...

Otherwise we know that the cross-contamination happened -- although I'm sure you and the other AZ proponents would prefer we didn't -- and these impacts seem to fit around the timeline. It's not hard to draw a line between the two.

So your entire basis for unilaterally blaming AZ for every side effect the J&J vaccine has is that the cross-contamination happened "around the timeline"? Not that the doses which caused side effects were affected by the contamination event (which everyone studying the issue would know because lot numbers are immediately reported to the manufacturer when something like this crops up). Not specific dates that could reasonably be inferred to indicate causality. Not that the doses in question even came from the same facility (there being one or two factories producing these things, after all). Just some vague sense that these events have happened in a timeline that you feel confirms your suspicion?

Protip: Johnson & Johnson is a multibillion dollar corporation. They have the resources needed to investigate this issue in infinitely more depth than some dude in a computer chair who read a couple articles online will ever be able to. You are nowhere close to the first person to consider that the side effects could be linked to the cross-contamination. If there were *any* chance that it was the cause of these side effects, J&J would already have identified that potential link and released a statement to that effect. That they haven't means there isn't.

Now, I am once again going to ask you: What basis do you have for blaming J&J's side effects on the AZ cross-contamination? You have two choices:

• You may continue to lie to yourself and everyone else about how well-informed you are and your ability to make well-reasoned deductions about the pharmaceutical industry
• You answer "I have none, never mind" and never attempt to make this claim again

Bear in mind that the apparent third and fourth options of "never come back to this topic and hope everyone forgets" and "necro this topic shortly before it purges while ignoring the question and hoping nobody notices so you get the last word" fall under the umbrella of option 1. There are no other options.

---

Zeus posted...

The irony in that statement is lost on no one... although I guess it's really more hypocrisy? Although would it even be that if somebody I've frequently accused of working a gimmick on that account turns around and, in retaliation, suggests that I'm not real?

I'd argue that it's at least a hypothesis!

I like!

Although idk why you always accuse people of having 'gimmicks'. We all have our pretty defined views and idiosyncrasies. I could call your views a gimmick, but that's kinda diminishing. I think it's best we all hash it out, as we do.

---

Can someone explain what my gimmick is supposed to be, because Zeus won't

---

they forgot to make his brain

---

Clench281 posted...

Can someone explain what my gimmick is supposed to be, because Zeus won't

I don't really know, but liking the Big Bang Theory is part of this elaborate and complex gimmick meant to undermine me.

---

Some LOSER GIMMICK USER has something to say, like, WHATEVER!

---

Clench281 posted...

Can someone explain what my gimmick is supposed to be, because Zeus won't

Being pretentious other than that, nothing.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Being pretentious other than that, nothing.

is explaining things pretentious?

---

Is it pretentious to think people SHOULDN'T flaunt their degrees in their Twitter handle?

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

is explaining things pretentious?

Not at all.

Clench281 posted...

Is it pretentious to think people SHOULDN'T flaunt their degrees in their Twitter handle?

That's just one of the many reasons lol. It's not the main one.

---

Clench281 posted...

Is it pretentious to think people SHOULDN'T flaunt their degrees in their Twitter handle?

That's just doing business. DOBIS!!!

---

I feel personally offended, pretentious is the last thing people would describe me as irl. Maybe you just need to get to know me in person

---

Perhaps he's dyslexic and meant "tempestuous"!

---