Resolves to YES if a vaccine that was widely administered (more than 1 million doses) is pulled off the market due to safety concerns in at least one OECD country, at any point in 2023.
Otherwise resolves to NO.
The term "pulled off the market" does not apply if rollout is only temporarily paused for 30 days or less.
Edit June 19:
It has to be an active choice by either a regulator or a pharmaceutical company to stop administering doses of a vaccine that were already produced and have not expired, and that choice has to be influenced mainly by safety concerns.
Does not count on its own:
A pharmaceutical company deciding not to produce additional doses of a specific vaccine
Doses of a vaccine expiring as part of their regular lifecycle
1,000š Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | į¹99 | |
| 2 | į¹88 | |
| 3 | į¹53 | |
| 4 | į¹52 | |
| 5 | į¹43 |
People are also trading
from somewhere:
By May of the following year, however, the FDA had officially restricted use over the rare-but-serious side effect concern. More specifically, the regulator said the shot could continue to be used by those 18 and older who could not access other vaccines. Also excluded from the restrictions were those who ā[elected] to receive the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine because they would otherwise not receive a COVID-19 vaccine.ā
FDA restricts J&Jās Covid vaccine because of blood clot risk
Officials say the shot should be given only to adults who cannot receive a different vaccine or who specifically request Johnson & Johnson.
The Food and Drug Administration said the shot should only be given to adults who cannot receive a different vaccine or specifically request J&Jās vaccine. U.S. authorities for months have recommended that Americans starting their Covid-19 vaccinations use the Pfizer or Moderna shots instead.
I think this is debatable. Clearly in a causal sense, the safety concerns caused (or maybe only contributed to?) a restriction, which caused it to be used less, which caused it to be pulled. But strictly speaking it was voluntarily pulled from the market, as J&J requested the EUA be revoked. And a restriction isn't quite the same as being pulled.
@jacksonpolack I think "pulled" is used colloquially here, J&J pulled their vax off the market, and safety concerns were the main factor in that decision.
@jacksonpolack Agreed it's debatable. The plain reading for me is that such a restriction on its own wouldn't have counted because it was not a complete pull off. It also happened last year and before market creation, so it's not very relevant.
What seems to have happened now is that it's not on the market anymore because all the remaining doses expired and they didn't make more because of low usage. I agree this lack of interest has been caused mainly by safety concerns and the restriction, but all of that happened last year and is kind of screened off for the purposes of this market.
I'd expect a YES resolution to require something like new safety concerns arising this year which lead to active discussion and to the pulling out of some vaccine. Old concerns can probably also be sufficient but still we'd need new active discussion and pull out due to it, simply running out of doses shouldn't be enough.
@NamesAreHard No it did not. The FDA limited its use May 5 2022, and it was pulled from use entirely on May 15, 2023. What happened last year was just a pause.
The doses expired on May 7, 2023, so it wasn't like it was slowly happening since last year, this vaccine was still being administered well into 2023, until the FDA cracked down on it in May. Pretty clearly seems like it was pulled from the market to me. Even news articles are using the phrasing "pulled by the FDA" to describe what happened.
@ShadowyZephyr Any links that FDA limited use on May 5 2023? Nothing linked here in the comments says that and I couldn't find anything on a quick search.
@NamesAreHard
Wait nvm it's may 5 2022, my mistake. I still think the fact that it was administered going into 2023, and then it stopped being administered, to be a pulling from market. I think the reason J&J didn't bother with it anymore was because those safety concerns were pushing companies to reject it and Americans to get the Moderna/Pfizer vaccine, not because it would have happened anyway.
@ShadowyZephyr I agree with your reasoning for why they're not making any more of it and said a similar thing above, my entire argument is that it shouldn't count for this market because there is no direct and recent causal relationship (and if I was making this market, I'd be asking about that).
My recommendation is to leave the market play out since there's still time both for a more definitive development to happen and for the creator to come back and decide, it's not clear enough for an admin YES resolution.
@jacksonpolack Yeah, I'd probably N/A this after market close if nothing else happens. I'd personally be fine with NO with sufficient user agreeement but it seems like we don't have it :)
@NamesAreHard I think if nothing else happens it should resolve N/A, but I wouldn't be surprised if J&J is given the boot more suddenly in EU countries as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/health/johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine-end/index.html
J&J vax pulled off the market May 15.
It's now June 17. Therefore, this resolves YES.
@ShadowyZephyr The doses expired and are therefore not administered anymore. But that's not the same as "pulling the vaccine off the market."
I will clarify the description after giving it some more thought.
does something like https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/johnson-johnson-vaccine-should-be-paused-u-s-after-extremely-n1263898 count as 'being pulled off the market due to safety concerns'?
@jacksonpolack The term "pulled off the market" does not apply if rollout is only temporarily paused for 30 days or less.