Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Hannibal Schmitt said:

Breaking news:

The pharmaceutical company announced a few minutes ago that it would stop deliveries to Europe. The reason is the FDA's announcement that it will suspend vaccinations in the USA.

I don't get it to be honest.  Wouldn't that mean there are more doses available for Europe, who can make up their own mind on whether clots are worth the risk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J&J should be delivered next week in Europe BUT made this statement minutes ago:

"We have decided to proactively delay the delivery of our vaccine doses to Europe," said a statement from Johnson & Johnson. The company stresses that it is working closely with health authorities - including in Europe - to resolve the incidents of six blood clots in 6.8 million vaccinations. "The safety and well-being of those who use our products is our top priority."


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I don't get it to be honest.  Wouldn't that mean there are more doses available for Europe, who can make up their own mind on whether clots are worth the risk.  

Yeah I think it's an over abundance of caution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I don't get it to be honest.  Wouldn't that mean there are more doses available for Europe, who can make up their own mind on whether clots are worth the risk.  

It's odd isn't it. 

Risk wise I really don't understand all of this pausing etc!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hannibal Schmitt said:

J&J should be delivered next week in Europe BUT made this statement minutes ago:

"We have decided to proactively delay the delivery of our vaccine doses to Europe," said a statement from Johnson & Johnson. The company stresses that it is working closely with health authorities - including in Europe - to resolve the incidents of six blood clots in 6.8 million vaccinations. "The safety and well-being of those who use our products is our top priority."


 

They are just being cautious then, investigating the blood clots before they roll the vaccine out further. It’s probably a wise move just to make sure there’s no issue then roll it out rather than have a situation like with the AZ vaccine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They are just being cautious then, investigating the blood clots before they roll the vaccine out further. It’s probably a wise move just to make sure there’s no issue then roll it out rather than have a situation like with the AZ vaccine. 

totally agree on this. as the vaccine hasn`t reached our shores there will be far less skepticism than it would have been after weeks in use and countries would stop it then. we have seen it on the AZ (who never got out of the negative headlines here, partly out of their own fault) and the vaccination strategy of most eu-countries is based on Biotech, Moderna and the AZ - nevertheless the J&J would be good addition as it is a one shot vaccine and its also a part of eu-countries vaccination plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hannibal Schmitt said:

totally agree on this. as the vaccine hasn`t reached our shores there will be far less skepticism than it would have been after weeks in use and countries would stop it then. we have seen it on the AZ (who never got out of the negative headlines here, partly out of their own fault) and the vaccination strategy of most eu-countries is based on Biotech, Moderna and the AZ - nevertheless the J&J would be good addition as it is a one shot vaccine and its also a part of eu-countries vaccination plans.

It feels like this is a small hiccup now but on the long run it should actually help matters. (I don’t mean to downplay blood clots as a minor thing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

It's odd isn't it. 

Risk wise I really don't understand all of this pausing etc!

 

Risk perception (when the risk is small) is quite abstract and also quite subjective. The examples given above aren’t that relevant, there’s loads of other things we don’t worry about that have higher risks than clotting events with the vaccine, but the main risk you want to balance is the risk from the disease the vaccine is protecting you from versus the vaccine itself (so, for a 20 year old for example, there is nowhere near a 20% chance they end up in hospital if they contract the virus as shown in the figures quoted above...using the most extreme example in high risk individuals to illustrate a point does nobody any favours as it too misrepresents the facts). These types of events occur twice as frequently with the MMR jab, but we still use it as the risk/benefit ratio is clear. FWIW, I think the JCVI have it correct, risk of vaccine-related complications is higher under the current circumstances in under 30s, so offer something else. Other places are being more conservative, however they have consistently been, so it’s true to form! In J&Js case, they are back where AZ were when this first popped up, it will be used again, but with clearer guidance on the safest approach (which is a little more awkward for J&J as we had planned on using it for younger cohorts)...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...