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

71–80 of 274 posts

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

#71

Post by nsxwolf »

_Understated_ wrote: post #42
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.

Sorry, but I take issue with that statement: 100% protection against death and hospitalization for a tiny minority that are susceptible. Your statement makes it sound like everyone that gets it will die when that is absolutely not true. In fact, the statistics show the exact opposite: here in the UK, for example, only around 400 people under the age of 70 (I think!) that have no underlying symptoms, have actually die…

I would take a vaccine just to catch one less common cold a year. I'll gladly take the COVID-19 vaccine just to prevent common cold symptoms.

And if it would actually end the pandemic and let me go into a store without a %$@#&#@ mask, I'd gladly swallow the syringe whole, sideways.

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

#72

Post by arrayjumper »

5440 wrote: post #52
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.

I can give you a laundry list right now. For example, millions of vials are cracking around the rim, several of the filling rooms have mold issues, one of the vial hoppers is leaving metal particulates in the vials, weekly OOS for manufacturing impurities..I think the public would freak out if they knew what was happening in the supply chain.

citation needed

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

#73

Post by gojomo »

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

Some think the Adenovirus-vetor vaccines have more risk of certain side-effects, especially if (by chance or a prior vaccination) the person was previously infected by a related Adenovirus.

By contrast, the mRNA vaccines do the same thing in the end - get your cells to appear infected & emit the target spike proteins – in the narrowest possible way, via a subset of the changes an Adenovirus infection causes.

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

#74

Post by alexhutcheson »

Moto7451 wrote: post #43
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.

Why do you believe that the FDA is holding them back? So far the process appears to be approval after the minimum of safety and effectiveness testing. This means that people won’t waste time or be harmed by a failed vaccine candidate. I don’t work in medicine and am just a bystander like most. Is there something I am missing?

The AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved for use in the UK since December, but the FDA isn't currently scheduled to approve it in the US until April.

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

#75

Post by jpeloquin »

abfan1127 wrote: post #36
FuckButtons wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfo…

> I'm lightly familiar with the FDA submission process. I would not refer to it as rigorous.

Is this referring to all of the submission pathways, or one in particular? That is, I wouldn't expect the 510(k) process to be particularly rigorous, but the PMA process should ratchet up the scrutiny.

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

#76

Post by jdhn »

5440 wrote: post #52
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.

I can give you a laundry list right now. For example, millions of vials are cracking around the rim, several of the filling rooms have mold issues, one of the vial hoppers is leaving metal particulates in the vials, weekly OOS for manufacturing impurities..I think the public would freak out if they knew what was happening in the supply chain.

If this is in any way true, you need to contact a journalist ASAP. Alex Berenson would love to hear from you.

If this isn't true, then you should delete this immediately.

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

#77

Post by beezle »

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.

Not hospitalized does not mean no damage, short or long term. That is not to say this vaccine is a bust, but I for one was disappointed in the efficacy. The Novavax vaccine appears to be better and is also able to use existing supply chain technology.

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

#78

Post by alexhutcheson »

square_square wrote: post #67
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.

The Novavax vaccine is way better than this one

We're limited by supply, so the existence of (limited quantities of) better vaccines isn't a good reason to block people from choosing to get a safe vaccine that still provides a reasonable degree of protection.

There are plenty of people in the lower-risk categories who would prefer to get a >60% effective vaccine now, rather than wait months for their turn in line for vaccines with the highest efficacy.

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

#79

Post by manwe150 »

zeku wrote: post #62
bawolff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adenovirus vaccines are also a newish tech (not that anything wrong with that, that's why we have safety testing). Its not as bleeding edge as mRNA but its definitely not a traditional vaccine

Don't tell him that. He's willing to get any vaccine at all and the world desperately needs to be vaxxed. If people want to take adenovirus vaxs because they feel its safer I say just let them.

I think what continues to surprise me (after talking about these for months now) is his underlying assumption that the third choice is a likely option. While the continued rate of spread seems to suggest to me that really we have a near binary option:

1. get injected with some vaccine soon, expose your body to a controlled amount of slightly noxious chemicals and hope your body learns how to eliminate them before they degrade on their own

2. contract COVID-19 soon, expose your body to those same noxious chemicals, plus a bunch of others that help it spread throughout your body and cause damage and linger, possibly for weeks or sometimes until you die

(excluding extreme options, like living alone for the next 5 years far from other humans, or dying of a mundane cause sooner)

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

#80

Post by Grimm1 »

_Understated_ wrote: post #58
Grimm1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Chest X-rays of asymptomatic patients – those infected but without symptoms – exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time, but those with COVID-19 symptoms had one every time, she also added." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/26/fac... There are things that can make living quite uncomfortable. So while yes not everyone will be hospitalized and die, there is still a lot of reasons to get a…

> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time With a sample size of what? That's a nonsense statement that can't be scrutinised. Edit, found this: The finding is promising but will require further research given the small size of the study with only 82 patients, mostly male and average age over 50 82 people over the age of 50. It also doesn't mention how healthy these people were. This is typical of pretty muc…

What I don't understand with people who reply like this is why bother taking the chance? My thought is that people have never experienced a severe respiratory illness before, while I have and because of that I'm appropriately level set on how bad the consequences can be for an individual.

Nothing like back to back cases of bad pneumonia 19 years ago to make me take this whole thing seriously.

My understanding is the hospitalization rate even for young and healthy (20-44) is around 10%. 1 in 10 odds for something happening is really a quite good chance of that thing happening.

Post reply on HN