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

181–190 of 274 posts

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

#181

Post by Scoundreller »

gscott wrote: post #168
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%

Difference is that flu vaccines are mass-produced in advance of flu season based on a prediction of what the flu season will be.

Here, we're targeting the actively-circulating virus. The match should be better, but getting enough into arms is the obvious problem.

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

#182

Post by interestica »

Exmoor wrote: post #30

I suspect the title was abbreviated to fit HN length requirements, but it cut out perhaps the most important part. This data is for a single shot. There is an ongoing trial for boosting with a second shot down the line, but having a single shot that's known to be effective at eliminating the disease and extremely effective at reducing severe cases and hospitalizations is a game changer. We can vaccinate lower risk po…

What is the optimal vaccination strategy? So far, it just seems like we're following "vaccinate healthcare workers and the most vulnerable" and that, on the surface, seems intuitive. But is there some other sort of algorithm that can determine the best way to reduce overall transmission the fastest? Random vaccinations? Targeted groups in different regions? Double shots for vulnerable before single shots for others? Mobile vaccination services?

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

#183

Post by jtxxwl2 »

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.

Have there been any long term double blind studies (e.g. 20+ years) to actually verify that this is the case? Or is this all based on the current models of how vaccines and their components behave in the body and what effects they have?

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

#184

Post by coding123 »

martin1975 wrote: post #155
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.

Downvotes without replies again. It is definitely worth debate. What if J&J's second shot gets it up to the same 95%? (even if they are not advocating a second shot at this time)

After all, these vaccines do not prevent the virus directly, they're just there to coax the body to produce new things. Both teach the body about the spike protein. It does seem like the mRNA vaccines are given a not-yet-due congratulations on every medium I see yet mRNA vaccines have absolutely zero history of pandemic ending at this time. Yes that may change, but to call them a gold standard now that's just not accurate.

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

#185

Post by andybak »

jtxxwl2 wrote: post #158
Grimm1 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sorry. Can you expand on this argument? In it's current form it makes almost no sense.

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

#186

Post by jtxxwl2 »

mewse wrote: post #162
_Understated_ wrote: post #112

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. 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…

Of course they work if people obey them. That's not the point.

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

#187

Post by bagacrap »

interestica wrote: post #182
Exmoor wrote: post #30

I suspect the title was abbreviated to fit HN length requirements, but it cut out perhaps the most important part. This data is for a single shot. There is an ongoing trial for boosting with a second shot down the line, but having a single shot that's known to be effective at eliminating the disease and extremely effective at reducing severe cases and hospitalizations is a game changer. We can vaccinate lower risk po…

What is the optimal vaccination strategy? So far, it just seems like we're following "vaccinate healthcare workers and the most vulnerable" and that, on the surface, seems intuitive. But is there some other sort of algorithm that can determine the best way to reduce overall transmission the fastest? Random vaccinations? Targeted groups in different regions? Double shots for vulnerable before single shots for others?…

well we definitely shouldn't be vaccinating people who've had and recovered from the virus before we vaccinate other who haven't, and we most likely shouldn't be giving out second shots before more people get a first shot. Of course individual risk and exposure plays a role, but the incremental protection conferred by the second shot in the arm of a person who's already recovered from covid is pretty low, even if they are a healthcare worker.

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

#188

Post by kelnos »

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…

The links you provided seem to be for AstraZenica's vaccine, though, not for Moderna's or Pfizer's (which is what 'm12k was originally talking about). That seems to suggest that Oxford/AZN were only testing symptomatic trial participants, no? And says nothing about what Moderna or Pfizer were doing?

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

#189

Post by jtxxwl2 »

andybak wrote: post #185
jtxxwl2 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sorry. Can you expand on this argument? In it's current form it makes almost no sense.

Public health experts, in the US and other western countries, deserve no credibility due to their handling of the obesity crisis. There are clear and obvious steps that governments could take to end obesity, but public health experts have failed to even make an effort to make them happen. Instead they have sat by and watched millions upon millions of people become obese, which is vastly more harmful to the average person's health than the coronavirus.

I do not even think an argument can be made that their failure is due to incompetence.

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

#190

Post by djrogers »

martin1975 wrote: post #155
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.

Claiming that there are ‘far more side effects’ is more than a little disingenuous, and smacks of either ignorance or willful misrepresentation of the facts here.
Post reply on HN