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

151–160 of 274 posts

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

#151

Post by lbeltrame »

Grimm1 wrote: post #53
_Understated_ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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

What is a "severe chest X-ray"? This story was debated on Twitter[1].

I agree with the (unforgiving) statements put there.

[1] https://twitter.com/Craig_1_1_7/status/1351203220878716928

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

#152

Post by [deleted] »

m12k wrote: post #150
tpmx wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Oxford: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... "To test for asymptomatic infections, participants in COV002 in the UK were asked to provide a weekly self-administered nose and throat swab for NAAT testing from 1 week after first vaccination using kits provided by the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)" Moderna: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/phase-3-clinic... "Inves…

[deleted]

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

#153

Post by thaeli »

tpmx wrote: post #128
boulos wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If it didn't disqualify me from receiving an mRNA vaccine later, sure. But right now it seems like you get one vaccine only and given that holding out for mRNA may be advisable.

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

#154

Post by neuronic »

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

God! This is such a huge misconception it's concerning that people still need to be this concerned. You don't have to hold back on the mRNA vaccine.

There is no such thing as long term issues that *suddenly appear after months or years". It simply can't happen because they don't have pharmacodynamics and you don't take them that regularly. They are not the same thing as medication.

Long term side effects like after the polio vaccine in the 70s always occur IMMEDIATELY after vaccination. Hours to days, maybe a week. These vaccines are in your body for a short period of time before they produce the spike protein from the mRNA instruction. All effects happen very fast. If you get vaccinated you might feel ill within the day.

So why did we only notice some effects of vaccines much later, for example narcolepsy in swine flu? Answer: it's all statistics. Some side effects have a chance of only 1:60.000 or even much less. Do you know how long it usually takes to vaccinate enough people to find something that occurs only in one out of 60.000 times? The answer is months or years.

But for COVID we have already vaccinated millions of people in multiple countries with multiple political systems and ideologies in power. No serious issues whatsoever. I know people who did get pretty sick for 2-3 days (basically bad cold) from the mRNA vaccine but that's GOOD. They are not infected, it's just a short term immune reaction that will disperse without causing serious harm and it shows the vaccine does what it is designed for: invoke an immune response.

And 2 days of symptoms are much better than 3 weeks with symptoms including hospitalization and long term effects due to an active virus in your body.

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

#155

Post by martin1975 »

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…

Gold standard? They have not been previously used on us humans and there are far more side-effects w/mRNA than traditional vaccines. I'll take J&J's '66%' over any mRNA vaccine.

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

#156

Post by tpmx »

m12k wrote: post #150
tpmx wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Oxford: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... "To test for asymptomatic infections, participants in COV002 in the UK were asked to provide a weekly self-administered nose and throat swab for NAAT testing from 1 week after first vaccination using kits provided by the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)" Moderna: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/phase-3-clinic... "Inves…

I owe you an excuse (I'm sorry), I think you are indeed correct - there seems to be a marked difference between the protocols.

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

#157

Post by tpmx »

thaeli wrote: post #153
tpmx wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it didn't disqualify me from receiving an mRNA vaccine later, sure. But right now it seems like you get one vaccine only and given that holding out for mRNA may be advisable.

Yeah, that's also a concern. Any insights from people with knowledge - is this likely to be a problem or not?

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

#158

Post by jtxxwl2 »

Grimm1 wrote: post #118
_Understated_ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You realize over 70m people in the US are obese right and another 100m are overweight? Known vulnerable groups include 170m people right there. I can't take your argument seriously.

And I bet you think the public health experts that sat by and watched 70m Americans get obese are just the people we should turn to now, don't you?

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

#159

Post by jepler »

tpmx wrote: post #130
m12k wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I found this document https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020... which stated about the phase I/II trial that "Weekly COVID-19 PCR testing is performed". However, the phase II/III and phase III trials state "Suspected cases presenting with compatible symptoms were tested for virological confirmation by COVID-19 PCR" (slightly different wording in the two cases)

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

#160

Post by mikem170 »

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…

> What I'm concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases that's been reported

When I looked into it I was shocked at how many people have long term affects after the flu. One of the studies I saw in a comprehensive paper looking at heart swelling and the flu showed a shocking amount of this in even non-hospitalized flu patients! [0]

Apparently any virus that attacks the lungs and.or nervous system leaves behind a lot of damaged people. Most of the time things like heart swelling go away after a couple months. But some people are permanently damaged. This can happen with all viruses, even the common cold kills people. Covid appears to be no different in this regard.

[0] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.685...

Post reply on HN