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

161–170 of 274 posts

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

#161

Post by majormajor »

Vinceo wrote: post #146
majormajor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

Do you think it's more expensive than the way we do it now?

I'd bet so. If it's even possible.

34.2 million people in the US are estimated have diabetes and you're proposing housing all of them (and a bunch of other people) in isolation for a year or two while everyone else goes about their business.

That's a lot of housing to find somewhere, food to provide, etc. Now try to do it in, say, six months.

At it's peak, unemployment from COVID shutdowns in the US looks like they were around 20-30M last summer. So in terms of making sure those people still have income, the number of people isn't too dissimilar, but that number has declined and we also didn't have to find new, isolated, housing, food, and other services for that group.

It's also a lot of people suddenly pulled out of their existing jobs and out of the regular in-person retail market, which means you're still not going to avoid some of the shocks we're seeing anyway.

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

#162

Post by mewse »

_Understated_ wrote: post #112
lostlogin wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t possible to protect the vulnerable while having rampant covid in the young and healthy, society doesn’t work like that. Here in New Zealand we isolate new arrivals in hotels and they are strictly monitored. There are only a few thousand people there at any given time, and despite the huge effort, covid still escapes into the community every so often.

> It isn’t possible to protect the vulnerable while having rampant covid in the young and healthy, society doesn’t work like that. Then why do the numbers keep going up despite locking down everyone? Why didn't governments institute a policy that keeps people away from those in vulnerable groups with a £1000 fine for breaches? Mandated masks etc. That would have been just as manageable. Lockdowns do not work, the fig…

> Lockdowns do not work

Hi, Victoria, Australia here. Today, our state is at 24 days of zero community transmission of covid, managed largely via a small lockdown after a small outbreak from interstate.

Before that small outbreak, we were up to 80-ish days of zero community transmission of covid, after a much much larger outbreak which was brought under control by a robust lockdown which began in March and continued into December.

Lockdowns work, if people obey them. And we’re proof of that.

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

#163

Post by m12k »

m-ee wrote: post #140
tpmx wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where is your source for that?

It's quite literally one of the first things mentioned in the trial protocols and journal articles https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746 "The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to placebo for the prevention of COVID-19 in adults ≥ 18 years of age [ Time Frame: 1 year ] A binary response, whereby a participant is defined as a COVID-19 case if their first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic…

I think you're right, now that I know what to look for. The AZ/Oxford vaccine has lower symptomatic efficacy than the mRNA ones, and it's asymptomatic efficacy is lower still. We don't know what the asymptomatic efficacy of the mRNA vaccines is yet, but since their symptomatic efficacy is higher, it would be reasonable to expect their asymptomatic efficacy to also be higher.

So at the end of the day, the main question regarding the AZ/Oxford vaccine is whether a half-dose starter shot regimen, or longer time between doses can bring its efficacy more consistently up around 90%, which would make it only slightly less effective than the mRNA ones, or if it's efficacy is actually just lower.

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

#164

Post by m-ee »

nickpinkston wrote: post #149

Is it possible to get J&J first and then get the Moderna, etc. later on for more protection?

This hasn't been tested but there's little reason to think this would be an issue. If anything having two different vaccines might be an advantage.

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

#165

Post by andybak »

tpmx wrote: post #156
m12k wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd also point out that "not replying in 1 hour" is a very high bar. HN doesn't give notifications of thread replies, I don't know what timezone that person was in and people have real lives that take priority over forum discussions.

I sometimes post something here and completely forget to look for replies. I'd hate to come back a week later to find out I'd been vilified for it.

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

#166

Post by tpmx »

andybak wrote: post #165
tpmx wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd also point out that "not replying in 1 hour" is a very high bar. HN doesn't give notifications of thread replies, I don't know what timezone that person was in and people have real lives that take priority over forum discussions. I sometimes post something here and completely forget to look for replies. I'd hate to come back a week later to find out I'd been vilified for it.

> I'd also point out that "not replying in 1 hour" is a very high bar.

Where did you get that from?

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

#167

Post by boulos »

m-ee wrote: post #144
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…

They do not have different measures of eficacy. AZ did more testing to look at symptomatic infections but that was not used in the primary efficacy calculation. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

I believe AZ was doing weekly testing while Moderna (maybe?) was doing “test if symptomatic”. That’s a huge difference.

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

#168

Post by gscott »

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 yearly flue vaccines are also about 60%

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

#169

Post by dnautics »

neuronic wrote: post #154
wtvanhest wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> Long term side effects like after the polio vaccine in the 70s always occur IMMEDIATELY after vaccination.

Sure, but this is different. Suppose a target cell happens to be expressing a retrotransposon that by chance binds to the mrna vaccine and integrates it into host dna in an inopportune spot, could cause elevated risk of cancer years from now. I think it's highly unlikely, and plan on getting an mrna vaccine myself but there are whole classes of side effects we can't simply rule out because "traditional vaccines show immediate effects"

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

#170

Post by andybak »

tpmx wrote: post #166
andybak wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also point out that "not replying in 1 hour" is a very high bar. HN doesn't give notifications of thread replies, I don't know what timezone that person was in and people have real lives that take priority over forum discussions. I sometimes post something here and completely forget to look for replies. I'd hate to come back a week later to find out I'd been vilified for it.

> I'd also point out that "not replying in 1 hour" is a very high bar. Where did you get that from?

Apologies if I got it wrong but I thought you made a comment (later deleted) along the lines of "you've made a strong claim and 1 hour later still haven't provided evidence".

Because it was deleted I can't check if it was you or not. I had it open in a tab and it disappeared when I refreshed.

Post reply on HN