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

121–130 of 274 posts

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

#121

Post by syntheticnature »

fattire wrote: post #119
syntheticnature wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't like antibiotics. The 66% is how many people are provided some level of immunity, just reducing the infectible population ; it doesn't directly cause issues for the virus the way an antibiotic interferes with the functioning of a bacterium. It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it. It i…

Yeah I guess I was asking if having only partial-immunity effectively acts as a filter or creates pressure so that rarer mutated strains make it through and are given a pathway to infection/reproduction. From your response: "It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it." it sounds like the answer is y…

It might make it through, but in that case it would be better adapted for those the vaccine didn't work on; this could actually make it less infectious for those the vaccine would work on, so it's questionable whether it would be any better or worse overall.

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

#122

Post by tpmx »

The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what you want, if you're in a position to pick.

The traditional vaccines, like this one and the Astra Zeneca one appear to be efficient at preventing hospitalization/death. That's great - it will ease the extreme load on the hospitals, and also reduce deaths greatly.

What I'm concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases that's been reported (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...), hitting a substantial part of the infected.

We need more clarity to which degree the non-mRNA-vaccines prevent these pretty horrobile chronic diseases.

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

#123

Post by eloff »

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

I agree, but the old cliche "beggars can't be choosers" comes to mind.

I'll take the first vaccine that becomes available to me, and I highly doubt they'd give me a choice at the clinic anyway.

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

#124

Post by angry_octet »

jdhn wrote: post #76
5440 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, what we need is anecdata that early random failures mean the world is ending, quick find a conspiracy pot boiler like Berenson.

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

#125

Post by majormajor »

_Understated_ wrote: post #99
akuchling wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

> 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.

This seems wildly expensive and impractical. Who's going to take care of all those people? Where are you going to house them (many of them live with people without those conditions)? Do you know how many people have diabetes, just to grab the first item off your list?

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

#126

Post by boulos »

tpmx wrote: post #122

The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what you want, if you're in a position to pick. The traditional vaccines, like this one and the Astra Zeneca one appear to be efficient at preventing hospitalization/death. That's great - it will ease the extreme load on the hospitals, and also reduce deaths greatly. What I'm concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases that's been reported ( https://w…

> The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what you want, if you're in a position to pick.

That might end up being true, but see my comment about the different “efficacy” measures and demographic differences [1]. We don’t have as clear cut a statement as that, and instead need to proceed (for now) with “all of the approved ones seem to prevent death or serious illness. Take what you can”.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25959872

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

#127

Post by m12k »

tpmx wrote: post #122

The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what you want, if you're in a position to pick. The traditional vaccines, like this one and the Astra Zeneca one appear to be efficient at preventing hospitalization/death. That's great - it will ease the extreme load on the hospitals, and also reduce deaths greatly. What I'm concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases that's been reported ( https://w…

I originally thought the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was significantly behind the mRNA vaccines in efficacy. But then I learned that the Oxford trials PCR-tested every participant regularly, while the Pfizer and Moderna trials only tested participants that were showing symptoms. So there's a very real chance that behind that ~95% number the mRNA vaccines also had asymptomatic cases that were never discovered during trials, and the actual protection is nearly the same as the Oxford one. The mRNA vaccines still seem like a great leap forward, and they don't come with the potential complications of resistance to the vector virus that adenovirus-based vaccines do - but I'm less sure now that they actually offer better protection overall.

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

#128

Post by tpmx »

boulos wrote: post #126
tpmx wrote: post #122

The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what you want, if you're in a position to pick. The traditional vaccines, like this one and the Astra Zeneca one appear to be efficient at preventing hospitalization/death. That's great - it will ease the extreme load on the hospitals, and also reduce deaths greatly. What I'm concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases that's been reported ( https://w…

> The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what you want, if you're in a position to pick. That might end up being true, but see my comment about the different “efficacy” measures and demographic differences [1]. We don’t have as clear cut a statement as that, and instead need to proceed (for now) with “all of the approved ones seem to prevent death or serious illness. Take what you can”. [1] https:…

I would take a Johnson&Johnson or Astra Zeneca vaccine tomorrow if I were offered, don't misunderstand me.

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

#129

Post by graeme »

azinman2 wrote: post #88

Bloomberg quoted “No severe allergic reactions,” to the J&J, yet my cousin-in-law is in the hospital right now with Guillain–Barré syndrome following the J&J clinical trial shot. Granted this is rare and can happen with any vaccine (I believe?), but it’s pretty strange to read about the lack of negative reactions when I personally know someone who has been affected. NB: I’m not advocating there is anything largely wr…

Guillan barré syndrome is not considered an allergic reaction to the best of my knowledge. So your brother’s case doesn’t contradict the claim.

And yeah GBS can happen with any vaccine but more importantly also from viral infections. Generally more frequently from the viruses themselves.

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

#130

Post by tpmx »

m12k wrote: post #127
tpmx wrote: post #122

The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what you want, if you're in a position to pick. The traditional vaccines, like this one and the Astra Zeneca one appear to be efficient at preventing hospitalization/death. That's great - it will ease the extreme load on the hospitals, and also reduce deaths greatly. What I'm concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases that's been reported ( https://w…

I originally thought the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was significantly behind the mRNA vaccines in efficacy. But then I learned that the Oxford trials PCR-tested every participant regularly, while the Pfizer and Moderna trials only tested participants that were showing symptoms. So there's a very real chance that behind that ~95% number the mRNA vaccines also had asymptomatic cases that were never discovered during tr…

> But then I learned that the Oxford trials PCR-tested every participant regularly, while the Pfizer and Moderna trials only tested participants that were showing symptoms.

That seems substantial, weird and important. Source?

Post reply on HN