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

91–100 of 274 posts

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

#91

Post by _Understated_ »

Grimm1 wrote: post #80
_Understated_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution too.

Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been close to deaths door. No way to tell.

The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable groups that can be severely symptomatic and even die from this but they make up a tiny tiny fraction of the population.

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

#92

Post by xiphias2 »

boulos wrote: post #81

I find the Johnson and Johnson Press Release [1] more informative. It gives a lot more detail on the study, including linking to their protocol [2]. It’s unfortunate, but the different vaccine trials all have different demographics and different measures of efficacy. IIRC, the Moderna “95%” is not “only 5% developed COVID” but rather “95% didn’t end up showing any symptoms” while AstraZeneca was doing weekly testing…

Also the results of this vaccine isn't that difference from just using 1 shot of another vaccine.

It looks like as long as it's safe to do it, the 2nd shot is worth it.

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

#93

Post by roywiggins »

spookthesunset wrote: post #66
roywiggins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen "severe" be measured by oxygen saturation; some people are able to manage severe COVID at home. Some people have to, because there simply isn't any hospital in their area with space for them.

> Some people have to, because there simply isn't any hospital in their area with space for them. Citation needed on that one. There is a lot of media fearmongering out there that results in outliers and things that are normal practice getting taken out of context and blown up into something scary.

You can see it in statistics. When the hospitalization starts dropping while case counts are going up, it's because more cases are being managed at home.

Prioritizing critical care is normal when care is in short supply, but it means that you are more likely to have to deal with COVID at home when the local healthcare system is overstressed.

> on Nov. 1, the Covid Tracking Project’s seven-day average showed about 80,000 new cases — which we would predict should lead to about 2,800 new hospitalizations a week later, by Nov. 8. Instead, there were 2,600, a little fewer than expected. On Nov. 15, we had 146,000 new cases, which should have resulted in about 5,100 new hospitalizations by Nov. 22. However, there were fewer than 3,700. This pattern of declining rates of hospitalization continued through the end of November.

> What is happening is pretty simple: Because hospitals are filling up, they are admitting fewer and fewer people. Any doctor or nurse will tell you that as the demand for beds soars, the threshold for admission rises with it...

> The decision on whether to admit a patient depends on two things: clinical judgment and bed availability. Critically ill patients will always be admitted. But as hospitals start to fill up, those who are less sick — younger covid patients, or those whose oxygen levels aren’t yet dangerously low — get sent home. These patients would be safer in a hospital bed, but there isn’t one available for them anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/12/07/covid-hosp...

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

_Understated_ wrote: post #90
jfengel wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "70-80%" figure is based on thousands of the doctor's own patients. https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-... It's not a peer reviewed study, and it includes only the people whose situations were severe enough to be sent to a radiologist. But it's enough to conclude that it's more than just a dismissably small number of cases.

Sorry, it says nothing of the sort. All the evidence, including government statistics, tell is it is precisely that, a dismissably small number outside known vulnerable groups.

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by akuchling »

_Understated_ wrote: post #89
JamesBarney wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I've never met anyone in the last year who thought Covid had a 100% death rate. Do you know anyone who believes this? > 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 died from COVID. Over 10,000 people under age 70 have died from covid, why does it matter if they have underlying sym…

I meant "underlying conditions", not underlying symptoms... that's my fault. So, basically, if you are healthy, your chances are absolutely tiny that you will die if you catch it. So, yeah, it matters a whole lot actually.

But most people are unhealthy, with one condition or another. It's misleading to throw out most of the population and then say "but look how small the numbers are for the sliver that's left!"

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

#96

Post by lostlogin »

_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…

Long covid is a problem that is going to keep on giving. A large portion of those who get covid will have symptoms 6 months later, and many cases are life altering.

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

#97

Post by thebruce87m »

_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…

Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 extra people died in the UK since COVID started. Antibody testing suggests that this was a result of ~10% of people being infected. I’ll let you do the maths for deaths due to herd immunity, and whether that is a “tiny minority”.

People at risk include people with diabetes and asthma.

In Scotland, the most hospital beds have been occupied by the 45 - 64 age group. Not sure about other parts of the UK.

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

#98

Post by xxpor »

_Understated_ wrote: post #89
JamesBarney wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I've never met anyone in the last year who thought Covid had a 100% death rate. Do you know anyone who believes this? > 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 died from COVID. Over 10,000 people under age 70 have died from covid, why does it matter if they have underlying sym…

I meant "underlying conditions", not underlying symptoms... that's my fault. So, basically, if you are healthy, your chances are absolutely tiny that you will die if you catch it. So, yeah, it matters a whole lot actually.

Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are concidered underlying conditions, people with "no underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total population.

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

#99

Post by _Understated_ »

akuchling wrote: post #95
_Understated_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant "underlying conditions", not underlying symptoms... that's my fault. So, basically, if you are healthy, your chances are absolutely tiny that you will die if you catch it. So, yeah, it matters a whole lot actually.

But most people are unhealthy, with one condition or another. It's misleading to throw out most of the population and then say "but look how small the numbers are for the sliver that's left!"

That's not an argument...

Healthy is subjective but when you say it like that then, yes, everyone has something.

However, there are a bunch of things that will greatly increase your chances of dying from COVID: diabetes, obesity, cancer, immune-related illnesses so this is what I am referring to. It's fair to say that people with one or more of those (not an exhaustive list) are "unhealthy".

So, it's not misleading: it's people who are vulnerable either due to age or health reasons that are at risk of dying, no one else.

It was even raised by an MP recently and he asked Boris Johnston why we're getting locked down when only 400 or so people with no underlying conditions have died... everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor health that made them susceptible so they should have been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with things.

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

#100

Post by lostlogin »

_Understated_ wrote: post #91
Grimm1 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution too. Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been close to deaths door. No way to tell. The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable g…

The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about.

What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...

Post reply on HN