Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 274 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#31

Post by eganist »

elliekelly wrote: post #14
fattire wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a partial or half immunized population not end up culturing a more resistant strain?

Or could it end up culturing a more mild strain? More like a common cold?

Worth pointing out that two of the viruses[0][1] responsible for the Common Cold share the same exact Family (in fact, the exact Genus[2]) as SARS-CoV-2 [3].

This isn't to say that the progression is certainly in this direction (better evidence of that dates back to 2009 [4]), but hey, there's hope that that's the direction.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-payoff/

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#32

Post by [deleted] »

mchusma wrote: post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

[deleted]

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#33

Post by GizmoSwan »

mchusma wrote: post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

Germany is approving Astrazeneca with some sort of limitation.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#34

Post by mchusma »

mchusma wrote: post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

BTW - I do think it would be more helpful if you report on the numbers between vaccines to use your primary metric as "100% Effective at Preventing Death", then use 68% or whatever as your secondary metric. This better reflects the differences between the vaccines so far. All are amazing at protecting against what people care about most.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#35

Post by UncleOxidant »

mchusma wrote: post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

Yeah, I don't get why the Astrazeneca vaccine approval in the US is being delayed till (reportedly) March. Is it because Pfizer and Moderna are US companies charging a lot more money vs. Oxford/Astrazeneca being UK and not making any money on their vaccine?

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#36

Post by abfan1127 »

FuckButtons wrote: post #13
gogopuppygogo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: the FDA has to justify their existence. If vaccines can be developed safely and deployed quickly, inexpensively, and in large quantities all without FDA then people would realize how bloated our government really is.

The reason this is unpopular is because of how obviously incorrect it is. The history of medicine is almost an allegory for why evolved evidence based systems like this to regulate what companies and doctors can do. Time and again, doctors and pharmaceutical companies have done unsafe, harmful and fraudulent things to patients who trusted them. The only reason we have medicine that works now is because we rigorously…

I spent time at a large medical device company. I'm lightly familiar with the FDA submission process. I would not refer to it as rigorous. We were encouraged to keep the information light or the FDA would be easily confused and reject. Rejection had more to do with giving the FDA simple warm fuzzies rather than rigorous data analysis. The FDA process is more an exercise in paperwork, not in rigorous drug/device performance.

As you say, doctors and pharma have done unsafe, harmful, and fraudulent things to patients. How much was the FDA complacent in this?

All of these drugs were approved by the FDA's "process".

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/drug-...

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#37

Post by newacct583 »

mchusma wrote: post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

> In the US, this would allow us to end this thing within 90 days.

It... would not. We need half a million (edit: billion of course, oops) doses to "end this thing", and those just aren't going to be there from any combination of manufacturers. If that kind of result was really on the table, a new administration and congressional leadership would be moving mountains to get that win.

But yes: AZ should probably be approved faster than it is and I don't know what the delay is.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#38

Post by geuis »

wtvanhest wrote: post #22
JamesBarney wrote: post #3

66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.

Personally, I’d rather take the J&J which uses old, proven tech. In 5 years we will know a lot more about nRNA vaccine long-term safety, and I’ll be much more comfortable taking an nRNA vaccine at that point. When I’m eligible, I still may take the nRNA, but my preference is on older tech at this point. I fully acknowledge that the nRNA is extremely likely to be safe, but it’s just my preference

mRNA, not n. It’s short for messenger RNA.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#39

Post by klodolph »

gogopuppygogo wrote: post #5
JamesBarney wrote: post #3

66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization. I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily basis.

Unpopular opinion: the FDA has to justify their existence. If vaccines can be developed safely and deployed quickly, inexpensively, and in large quantities all without FDA then people would realize how bloated our government really is.

The FDA more than justified its existence when it prevented the entry of thalidomide into the US market without more evidence of its safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#40

Post by Exmoor »

mchusma wrote: post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

I agree that the AZ vaccine was safe and should have been given US approval. That said, this data is for a single dose compared to AZ's two doses so it is a bit apples-to-oranges.
Post reply on HN