Disregarding demographics etc., driving 100 miles give you about the same risk of death as getting a blood clot from the J&J vaccine (1 in a million). I quite like that - it gives reasonable intuition about the order of magnitude of the risk.
I wonder if pressure socks like are recommended when flying would prevent the clots?
Traditionally, blood clots form in the leg, then depending on which leg can travel thru your heart (or worse block your heart) to lodge in the lungs, or in worse cases go to your brain. My clots lodged in both lungs, so at least some travelled thru my heart (leading some to call me heartless). At least one of the clots in my lungs felt like someone had jabbed a knitting needle into my chest and was wrenching it around. Not sure if this is what the J&J clots do though…
Your clots could have originated from your heart and have been caused by atrial fibrillation. That is an arterial clot vs a venous clot.
This is what I had and spent weeks in the hospital getting the clots removed from my heart and leg.
I just had the J&J and am concerned over any issues related to blood thinners.
Right, “optimum” wasn’t the best word. However the CDC is still saying “2-dose series separated by 21 days” for the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Elsewhere they say “at least” 21 days, and also that “If it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval, you may schedule the second dose up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose; there is limited efficacy data beyond this window”. So it appears that there is data for efficacy up to 6 weeks between shots, but not further.
This appears to be dated information, though (or at least a very conservative guidance) because advisory committees in both the UK and Canada are advising that much longer periods are acceptable; in some provinces in Canada, as long as four months. My point was that this is mainly being done to allow as many people as possible to at least get the first shot, even though the long waiting period may be less than ideal, because it produces the best overall outcome in light of vaccine shortages. It’s certainly less than ideal in terms of increased vulnerability due to the long period without full protection. Whereas the US has enough vaccine apparently that people are routinely getting it in the 21-day interval.
The guidance, and data, are different for the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine than for the mRNA vaccines. As I noted in post 59, AZ actually tested different 2nd dose timing, and observed increased ultimate efficacy with a longer delay.
Pfizer and Moderna only have a little data that suggests that the protection of the first dose hasn’t begun to wane within 42 days. Pfizer and Moderna have not been in favor of altering the dose spacing. Oxford/AZ generally has supported it.
Note that in both the AZ vaccine and the mRNA vaccines, the person is less protected until they get the second dose. For AZ, the delay appears to be a trade-off for greater efficacy after the 2nd shot.
I don’t think there’s been a shift among the experts on this. There is a split about what the best policy is. Here’s an article with opinions from 2 experts who have differing opinions on it.
And another article that puts you in the position of having to make the policy decision.
I wonder (IANA doctor, so take it with a grain of salt) if the clotting associated with both vaccines is somehow related to the weird blood clotting issues with actually catching COVID- maybe they’re all some kind of immune system reaction?
Here’s some informed commentary that may help answer that question:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/14/vaccine-side-effects-q-and-a
It’s a million to one odds based on the entire seven million population who got the vaccine, but there’s no evidence that the odds are the same for the separate groups in that population. It looks to me that everyone who had a blood clot was a pre-menopausal woman. What percentage of the seven million did that group make up? If they were 25% of the vaccinated, then the odds for them are only one in 250,000. That group may have been even less than 25% of the population considering that the vaccinated people tend to skew to the post menopausal ages. If they were only 10% of the seven million it might make sense to continue vaccinating men and older women with J&J and steer younger women towards the Pfizer and Moderna.
Some good information from a doctor and public health expert who took part in the J&J trial. This doctor is advising women under 50 to get a different vaccine if it is available to them, and if there aren’t reasons to get the J&J vaccine specifically. I’ve quoted a lot, but there’s more good info in there – worth reading.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/27/health/women-johnson-johnson-vaccine-wellness/index.html
Not that anyone was holding their breath in anticipation, but as the OP I’m happy to say that it’s day 16 so I’m out of the supposed 6-15 day brain clot window. Not that I was ever very concerned.
I thought it was 3 weeks and just mentioned it to my kid, who was horrified that it was even a possibility. I neglected to mention that it’s not impossible for me to throw a clot, but just for vax reasons.
All of the known cases have been within 15 days. The article I posted said to be vigilant about it for 3 weeks. Tough I suppose one should always be vigilant for the major symptoms.
whoops my post should say “just NOT for vax reasons.” I hit my 3 weeks yesterday, which is why I was like “yay I made it even though I wasn’t worried.”