Brooklyn woman gets COVID 3 weeks after Johnson & Johnson vaccine

Ashley Allen, 31, made it through 2020 and 2+ months into 2021 without becoming infected. She then got the Johnson and Johnson jab, and 3 weeks later she's infected and sick. According to Miss Allen...

Even after Allen was vaccinated, she was careful to always mask up when outside and wash her hands frequently.

Staff was just as shocked as she was after finding out she had been vaccinated weeks prior. What excuse did they give her?

“The vaccine does not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID. It prevents you from being hospitalized or dying from it,” Dr. Kris Bungay, a Manhattan primary care physician, told The Post. “That is why we all still have to be careful.”

Supposedly this is a "rare occurrence", but I seem to keep hearing stories similar to this and there's always an excuse. Always another reason the jab isn't the end of your new Covid lifestyle.

I call BS! Don't urinate on my head and tell me it's raining.
Link

a reply to: Klassified

It's been out there since the beginning that the J&J is only about 67% effective in preventing disease. What it is supposed to be able to do is prevent serious illness that causes hospitalization and death.

I actually wanted the J&J vaccine reasoning that my immune system was easily strong enough that the increased protection of the J&J would be enough insurance. I was not afraid of the "big, bad" COVID, and preferred the method they used to make the J&J as a more understood method.

Alas, we do not get to pick and choose which version of the vaccine we get these days, so I was given Pfizer.

a reply to: Klassified


The thing I don't get is...

On one hand you've got covid risks,

Which for the young and even not so young, and healthy, you're more than likely gonna be fine.

On the other hand you've got....the mystery box.

Will it help? Will it hurt? Will it do absolutely nothing effectively because you're a youngish relatively healthy person and covid wasn't a big deal anyway? Is there long term effects that are worse than covid? For those that do suffer negative side effects, would those people have suffered from covid not if they hadn't got the vaccine?

Taking the vaccine is taking the mystery box, which, if you're in serious danger from covid, might be better than not taking the mystery box. Otherwise, why in the hell would you take the mystery box?

a reply to: ketsuko

It's been out there since the beginning that the J&J is only about 67% effective in preventing disease. What it is supposed to be able to do is prevent serious illness that causes hospitalization and death.

Which is what she was told. I now personally know two people who ended up in the hospital after the jab. One was J&J, the other Pfizer. Both were exceptionally healthy people before. Neither has been the same since. So maybe I'm a bit jaded, but I still feel like my last statement in the OP holds true for this whole scenario from last year to now.

I'm glad to hear you haven't had any major issues.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

It's been out there since the beginning that the J&J is only about 67% effective in preventing disease. What it is supposed to be able to do is prevent serious illness that causes hospitalization and death.

Right. Johnson & Johnson said on day-1 that their vaccine was only 65 - 70% effective in stopping Covid-19 infections. The main appeal was J&J being the only vaccine that only required a single dose (jab), instead of 2, like Pfizer and Moderna.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: Klassified


The thing I don't get is...

On one hand you've got covid risks,

Which for the young and even not so young, and healthy, you're more than likely gonna be fine.

On the other hand you've got....the mystery box.

Will it help? Will it hurt? Will it do absolutely nothing effectively because you're a youngish relatively healthy person and covid wasn't a big deal anyway? Is there long term effects that are worse than covid? For those that do suffer negative side effects, would those people have suffered from covid not if they hadn't got the vaccine?

Taking the vaccine is taking the mystery box, which, if you're in serious danger from covid, might be better than not taking the mystery box. Otherwise, why in the hell would you take the mystery box?

This is mostly what I was getting at. You said it better than I did in my annoyed and cynical state of mind. Thanks.

originally posted by: Klassified

Even after Allen was vaccinated, she was careful to always mask up when outside and wash her hands frequently.

seems to be some major misunderstanding here. something i keep on seeing in people's comments pretty much everywhere. wearing a mask has never been about protecting the wearer, it has always been about protecting everyone else FROM the wearer. to actually protect the person wearing said mask, said mask would actually need to be the appropriate type of mask. which has been in critical shortage throughout the entire pandemic. hospitals have had enough issues trying to get them, as well as other needed PPE. now in a perfect world, that is what everyone would be wearing. but there are nowhere even close to the numbers needed for every person on the planet to even have one, let alone one or two a day. so we must go with the far less perfect solution which is far from ideal. and that is wearing masks that won't protect the wearer, but instead are used to keep as much of the virus from getting airborne in the first place as we can as we do things like breath or talk. in fact if we actually had enough proper masks, almost everything could be open, and everyone could be out and about as per normal, aside from wearing the mask, and of course maintaining proper washing of hands etc.

Getting the virus after getting vaccinated is not rare, the vaccines only lower your risk to between sixty five and seventy four percent if I remember right. That is a little better than the flu shot has historically been though, that usually hovers between fifty and sixty percent on the best of years.

All three vaccines lower the risk of getting covid though, which is the improper immune system response to the virus. But still, eighty to ninety percent of people according to research have an immune response to this virus naturally, so they can make up figures saying it gives a person protection against covid 19 up into the ninety percent range easily. Makes me wonder if someone is deceiving us into believing this makes people immune to the virus.











that

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

It's been out there since the beginning that the J&J is only about 67% effective in preventing disease. What it is supposed to be able to do is prevent serious illness that causes hospitalization and death.

Right. Johnson & Johnson said on day-1 that their vaccine was only 65 - 70% effective in stopping Covid-19 infections. The main appeal was J&J being the only vaccine that only required a single dose (jab), instead of 2, like Pfizer and Moderna.

Plus it is not miRNA

Well. It’s not a vaccine.

So. Yeah it happens and will continue to.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: Klassified


The thing I don't get is...

On one hand you've got covid risks,

Which for the young and even not so young, and healthy, you're more than likely gonna be fine.

On the other hand you've got....the mystery box.

Will it help? Will it hurt? Will it do absolutely nothing effectively because you're a youngish relatively healthy person and covid wasn't a big deal anyway? Is there long term effects that are worse than covid? For those that do suffer negative side effects, would those people have suffered from covid not if they hadn't got the vaccine?

Taking the vaccine is taking the mystery box, which, if you're in serious danger from covid, might be better than not taking the mystery box. Otherwise, why in the hell would you take the mystery box?

Bro this is 2021. You can take your racist logic elsewhere. And science and stuff. Are you trying to kill us all?

That's all I got here. You are spot on with that common sense assessment. Common sense, lol. Sounds funny at this point.

a reply to: Klassified

Well at least her skin didn't peel off. So there's that.

Man’s skin ‘peeled off’ in rare reaction to Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine

Just turned 46 on the 9th so according to our overlords I should be ok without the vaccine. Until it's forced on us anyway.
Even if I was at "high risk" I wouldn't take it. with a survival rate of 99.98% I feel I'm better off taking my chances.

Personally, I believe the really uncomfortable aspect of this COVID thing is that it creates asymptomatic carriers that can infect others before the carrier may even know he or she is infected. Which can certainly help spread the virus far and wide before anyone realizes they have even been exposed. So if these vaccines merely increase that pool of asymptomatic carriers, and perhaps the only benefit (to them) is of being asymptomatic or have at least reduced symptoms, is that really a worthwhile and desired tradeoff to the population at large? Even discounting the fact that long term repercussions for taking the vaccine are completely unknown, I am failing to understand the logic of the somewhat forced lemming effect of so many people jumping off the cliff to be vaccinated.

In my mind's eye view I am seeing visions of millions (eventually billions?) of people vaccinated yet still able to be infected and still able to infect others, with the catch being that they MUST take their periodic vaccine shots in order to reduce the chance that without taking those booster shots, they will be in jeopardy of developing more serious symptoms without them. It won't stop the virus, just help keep you from having more serious symptoms while you are infecting others. As long as you keep with the program for the rest of your life, anyway. Man, what a wet dream scenario that would be for the pharmaceutical companies! All that along with the governments throwing money at them hand over fist to cover development and startup costs, and they have absolutely no liability if their money maker goes sour, as icing to the cake. I couldn't write a more lucrative business plan if I tried. The only real fly in the ointment will be those pesky "vaccine deniers" who could royally gum up the works by being empirical evidence that the vaccine really isn't necessary at all to stay healthy. IMHO.

a reply to: Klassified

Whats the problem with reducing life threateaning to inconvenient?

It's been a year and then some since the "outbreak".

I'm pretty sure a majority of folks have been exposed and are walking around just fine like it's nothing. #ChangeMyMind

The severity of this whole "plandemic" has been overblown from the beginning. Probably the largest, most successful psyop since central banking has been perpetrated upon the entire planet.

IMO, which all of this is anyway, the veracity and speed at which current agendas are moving indicate to me that the narrative is running thin and it's go time before too many shake off the fog and ultimately the jig is up.

I mean honestly...BE VERY HONEST WITH YOURSELF ABOUT THIS:

Taking EVERYTHING into consideration, do you honestly believe the end goal is to preserve life??

I don't know how anyone informed and knowledgeable can claim that to be the case without looking completely daft.

a reply to: Klassified

If she was vaccinated only once with J&J - she was not ready yet with that vacc. J&J requires two rounds to give a reasonable protection.

a reply to: Klassified

Shoowah she did!

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: Klassified

What's the problem with reducing life-threatening to inconvenient?

This is not an anti-vax response, it's a be informed and make the right decision for you and your family based on your and their individual health. Most will be fine

Nothing at all but just be clear about the reported cases of adverse events following COVID vaccinations. for example, they have been 1,315 cases reported of persons getting contracting COVID after getting vaccinated.

In fact, all the vaccines used since 1990 have reports showing 3,693 deaths combined from all the vaccines since 1990. Out of those reported death totals, 3693 total 1,858 are ones reported after the COVID. Well over half the reported deaths originated from 4 months of COVID, 93 other vaccines from 30 years of usage aren't even close.


And this is just the alleged deaths, 12,357 of the adverse reactions to COVID vaccines were considered life-threatening. For all the vaccines used since 1990, the totals were 79,430. COVID totals are based on only 21% fully vaccinated at 42% it doubles at 63% it triples.That will be an 36,000 plus life threathening sometime around mid July 7 months of use max.

What exactly does 75% efficacy mean?

Well, it means 25% of the people who get the shot, may still get the virus.

johnson & johnson, are they they guys who had asbestos in their baby products?