Latest Vaccine News

[gwb-trading]

Same exact issue as with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both are vector based adno virus delivery mechanisms. I’d say the J&J shot is probably done in the US minus some unforeseen problems with the other vaccines.

Moral of the story is to diversify and have options.

Some scientists noted that the formulation of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are very similar. If one vaccine had problems with blood clots then it was likely the other vaccine would have the same issues.

My one question is --- Does this problem cause problems with the U.S. vaccination timeline and effort. We were already getting close to the point where would be more vaccine doses available than people wanting them (projected at the end of April). Does this stop of J&J change any of this -- or will available doses of the two other vaccines cover the elimination of of J&J.

 

[Cuddles]

Some scientists noted that the formulation of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are very similar. If one vaccine had problems with blood clots then it was likely the other vaccine would have the same issues.

My one question is --- Does this problem cause problems with the U.S. vaccination timeline and effort. We were already getting close to the point where would be more vaccine doses available than people wanting them (projected at the end of April). Does this stop of J&J change any of this -- or will available doses of the two other vaccines cover the elimination of of J&J.

Wonder how JJ got away with only one shot? AZ being two shots likely worsened the odds

 

[jem]

So it turns out the "anti vaxxers... that moron pre fascist GWB attacks were correct to be skeptical and wait for the data.


I mentioned that my wife knew quite a few nurses of child bearing age that were waiting for more data. Who could have guessed they were smart and the prefascists were wrong?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Some scientists noted that the formulation of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are very similar. If one vaccine had problems with blood clots then it was likely the other vaccine would have the same issues.

My one question is --- Does this problem cause problems with the U.S. vaccination timeline and effort. We were already getting close to the point where would be more vaccine doses available than people wanting them (projected at the end of April). Does this stop of J&J change any of this -- or will available doses of the two other vaccines cover the elimination of of J&J.

As I said with the AZ flap, we must not get uppity because all of these vaccines - including Moderna early on- have their turn in the barrel. AstraZ is a perfectly fine vaccine and all the acceptable/useable vaccines will have problems as do all the major prescription drugs that are used every day.

The American or American admin attitude toward AZ was/is "who needs em anyway" so there has been sort of piling on to them. Problem is, if the powers that be get uppity like that you better hope that the beltway favored vaccines do not develop problems.

Or to put it another way, you will find a real generosity of spirit toward JandJ because we need them, and the admin needs them to meet their plans. All problems will be framed in terms of "a brief pause" and "still expect them to meet delivery as planned even if there are small delays, blah, blah, blah." Meanwhile, we have kept AZ from coming to market or created a real sour environment for them by emphasizing scary stuff about the vaccine, which by the way is true for JandJ as well.

Whatever, no punchline. Just sayin there is pressure in the system to keep AZ out but there is also pressure to keep JandJ in because- well- we need them. The "science" of underlying issues with the vaccine can get packaged or framed in different ways based on what the beltway needs. Could happen. Could be unintended consequences too. It may help AZ to eventually get approval if the "experts" have had to find a way to digest/accept the same issues with JJ. You can only play the "their vaccine stinks but mine does not game up to a point." And that point is when they find the same turd on a preferred vaccine that they found on AZ's.

 

[UsualName]

Wonder how JJ got away with only one shot? AZ being two shots likely worsened the odds

This is a good point. AZ was running about 1 in 250k whereas J&J initially points to 1 in 1m.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

This is a good point. AZ was running about 1 in 250k whereas J&J initially points to 1 in 1m.

You have to know and establish what the background rates are. Which I am sure they have, just saying that needs to be mixed into the discussion. In other words, how many blood clots are occurring in the same population that has not been vaccinated. If the Europeans got more blood clots from AZ but their general pop or method of study for the general population also shows a higher rate for blood clots, that needs to be factored in.

All of this does not help vaccine resistance of course.

 

[wrbtrader]

This is a good point. AZ was running about 1 in 250k whereas J&J initially points to 1 in 1m.

For a vaccine...1 negative event per 1 million vaccinations is still above what was expected.

I could be wrong but I think the vaccination models predicted 1 negative event per 10 million vaccinations. Yet, usually when a negative event targets a specific gender or age group...a pause is needed to do more research / investigation before continually to use the vaccine in all other groups.

• Reminder - These vaccines were fast tracked...J&J vaccine received emergency approval back on February 27th 2021.

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepa...isease-2019-covid-19/janssen-covid-19-vaccine

At the FDA site they state typically a blood clot is treated with the anticoagulant drug Heparin. Yet, for these particular blood clots from a Covid vaccine...Heparin treatment is very dangerous.

Oddly, the FDA does not state (so far) if those women treated for blood clots were given the drug Heparin by the Doctors used by those women.

Regardless, 1 negative event out of 1 million is still regarded as rare involving the statistics of vaccinations. A person can be up to date on the statistical data via the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) @ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html

wrbtrader

 

[UsualName]

You have to know and establish what the background rates are. Which I am sure they have, just saying that needs to be mixed into the discussion. In other words, how many blood clots are occurring in the same population that has not been vaccinated. If the Europeans got more blood clots from AZ but their general pop or method of study for the general population also shows a higher rate for blood clots, that needs to be factored in.

All of this does not help vaccine resistance of course.

That was the initial failure in Europe, they were comparing all blood clots in general population to vaccinated populations. When they took a more targeted review of these specific clots they found the excess.

I think there is a lot of consternation over dropping some of the vaccines as we go but it’s important to remember the strategy in developing multiple vaccines was to be able to drop some of them.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I think there is a lot of consternation over dropping some of the vaccines as we go but it’s important to remember the strategy in developing multiple vaccines was to be able to drop some of them.

Yeh, well, some pharmaceutical companies are thinking that the process is just a matter of whether their drug meets the "benefits outweigh the risks" standard and from there they are able to go to market and be successful or not. The government can make decisions about which ones it wants to collaborate with and purchase from, but that is different then putting up obstacles for others to enter.

It is not the governments role- well maybe it is among your ilk- to drop a vaccine developer such as AZ from entry into the market unless the reason is upon the science and trial data. Should not be different rules for favored vaccines. I would just be replaying my previous post but the beltway will definitely grease the skids for JandJ regardless of how closely their problem resembles AstaZ's.

 

[UsualName]

Yeh, well, some pharmaceutical companies are thinking that the process is just a matter of whether their drug meets the "benefits outweigh the risks" standard and from there they are able to go to market and be successful or not. The government can make decisions about which ones it wants to collaborate with and purchase from, but that is different then putting up obstacles for others to enter.

It is not the governments role- well maybe it is among your ilk- to drop a vaccine developer such as AZ from entry into the market unless the reason is upon the science and trial data. Should not be different rules for favored vaccines. I would just be replaying my previous post but the beltway will definitely grease the skids for JandJ regardless of how closely their problem resembles AstaZ's.

Under normal circumstances I agree with this position. It’s a very valid point. However, this vaccine rollout is a totally government funded endeavor with a national goal. Limiting vaccines to those with the least known complications helps achieve the overall goal.

Reducing hesitancy to increase percent of vaccination is in line with the overall goal.

Mind you now, you have a very valid point. If people want these vaccines outside of the federal program I would not be against that.