Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by jtxxwl2 » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 2:48 AM UTC

armadsen wrote: post #147

orwin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High blood pressure is a serious underlying condition (and counted as an underlying condition in Covid death). Obesity is counted as an underlying condition at stage 1 (between 30 and 35 BMI).

Exactly. Obesity alone means ~40% of the population of the US, and ~30% of the UK have an underlying condition as far as COVID risk goes.

>Obesity alone means ~40% of the population of the US

And that is in large part thanks to the government and its public health experts, who we are now, I guess, supposed to believe have our interests in mind, even though, by letting 40% of the population become obese, when there are plain and simple steps they could have taken to prevent it, they have irrefutably demonstrated they do not actually care about the health of the population.

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

#212

Post by mlyle » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:00 AM UTC

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…

No. AstraZeneca also tested with weekly PCR surveillance. But the efficacy numbers we're comparing between AstraZeneca and the mRNA vaccines are measures of how often they prevents symptomatic illness-- a very similar standard to that used in the Moderna and Pfizer trials (but not absolutely, directly comparable).

Unfortunately, the AZ trial is a mess. One way it was a mess is that the error bars on how much they prevent all illness (not just symptomatic illness) go all the way down to 1%.

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

#213

Post by bluGill » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:02 AM UTC

tpmx wrote: post #157

thaeli wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unlikely. There has never been (to my knowledge) any vaccine that prevented your from getting a different one latter. People get flu vaccines yearly and nobody asks what the last one you got was even though there a dozens of manufactures.

You shouldn't get one vaccine and then a week latter get a different one. (I'd guess this is safe, but there is no reason to do it). However getting one and then a year latter a different one is normal practice and shouldn't be a problem.

In short, take what you can get now. If COVID is still a problem in a year (I'm assuming there is a lot more supply of vaccine then) ask your doctors if you should get a different booster.

Odds are good than in 6 months to a year we will have a different vaccine anyway to cover the variants. The vaccines don't seem to be doing well against the South Africa strain of Covid (only applying to the few that have done real trials, many need more testing), so it is back to the drawing board already.

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

#214

Post by mlyle » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:02 AM UTC

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...

Just a nit: they don't have exactly the same outcome measure, definition of "severe", "symptomatic", etc.

Nor were they conducted in the same, time, or the exactly same demographics. Nor did they use the same protocol: testing weekly with a swab and detecting and informing the participant of a positive status will get that person to report symptoms to the trial more often than if you don't.

They use similar measures of efficacy but they're not the same thing and are not perfectly comparable. Still, it seems very likely that the mRNA vaccines are much better than AZ.

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

#215

Post by bluGill » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:06 AM UTC

coding123 wrote: post #204

djrogers wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you help me find the covid-19 side effects tracking website? I can't seem to find it. In fact I can't find anything that's enumerating the data publicly. I can't answer your comment at all without any data.

The US has various vaccine trackers for side effects. They are anyone can put anything in them. (including things like alien abduction), but they give us a guide as to what is reported. Something like 1 in 100,000 has an allergic reaction in 15 minutes and needs treatment (an epi-pen). That is the only side effect I've heard of.

The numbers of allergic reaction are different for Moderna and Pfizer. If you have a history of allergies you should consult your allergist for advice.

The above numbers are public, but I'm not sure where I read them. As always I'm just a guy on the internet, if you need medical advice see a doctor.

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

#216

Post by ulfw » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:10 AM UTC

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.

>> there are far more side-effects w/mRNA than traditional vaccines

Please list those. Should be easy as you claim there's so many of them. Also please prove how often those many side effects occur. Thank you.

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

#217

Post by gojomo » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:10 AM UTC

angry_octet wrote: post #131

gojomo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some think the Adenovirus-vetor vaccines have more risk of certain side-effects, especially if (by chance or a prior vaccination) the person was previously infected by a related Adenovirus. By contrast, the mRNA vaccines do the same thing in the end - get your cells to appear infected & emit the target spike proteins – in the narrowest possible way, via a subset of the changes an Adenovirus infection causes.

As I understand it, the risk is not to do with the adenovirus but with the use of PEG (polyethylene glycol) or similar analogues, to make the active ingredient last longer, which may cause an allergic reaction[1] to sensitized people. The AZ vaccine does not use PEG (nor J&J, Novovax IIRC). The complication with the adenovirus carrier is that you immune system may attack the carrier so effectively that you don't get…

Your video specifically mentions triggering a 'cytotoxic T-cell' - that's a cell that kills virus-infected cells. What's more, it doesn't explicitly state that all the bodily cells that receive the foreign mRNA survive.

I'm pretty sure they're attacked & destroyed by the immune system for their emission of foreign proteins - that is, they "appear infected". And, some time after the mRNA was introduced – days? weeks? – it's all used up, because unlike a full viral vector, it doesn't code for more invasive genetic material, only proteins. And, the cells it hijacked are in some combination, destroyed by the immune system or revert back to normal, non-threatening operation.

If you have a more specific reference that denies the mRNA-altered cells are attacked-as-if-infected, I'd appreciate seeing it. But that video doesn't make that claim, and in fat the reference to 'cytotoxic T-cells' implies the opposite.

(Also, as the sibling response elaborates, the problems with Adenovirus-vectors are not limited to PEG reactions.)

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

#218

Post by ulfw » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #175

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. Why? There isn't any evidence that they're more effective than the J&J one.

The evidence is literally in the post you're commenting on.

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

#219

Post by bluGill » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:15 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #175

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. Why? There isn't any evidence that they're more effective than the J&J one.

The mRNA vaccines are 95%, J%J is 66%. The former number is confirmed by the FDA, while the latter is a press release (probably accurate, but they might be hiding something while would be used to make them look better). The J&J vaccine just isn't as good. It is good enough, but not as good.

Of course it is possible that the difference is because a vaccine resistant strain is running around now and so J&J got unlucky by not starting their trails as soon. However right now all the numbers we have say J&J isn't as good. Good enough probably, but not as good.

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

#220

Post by mjevans » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 3:17 AM UTC

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?…

Pure armchair speculation, but I'd at least like public heath officials to explain their logic.

Tier 0: High risk daily exposure. (Medical, Rescue, Law Enforcement)

Tier 1: Frequent contact with Tier 0 (elderly in care) and/or high risk of complications (anyone in a hospital setting for an extended duration).

+++ My tier 2 seems to differ from public health models, at least that I've seen. My logical basis is to break transmission vectors. +++

Tier 2: Those who can't social distance well; essential workers with contact. This group should include anyone in unavoidable public service positions of any sort. E.G. (but not exhaustive): Teachers, grocery store workers, restaurant workers, chefs, warehouse and delivery workers.

Tier 3: High risk but CAN social distance and isolate.

Tier 4: Everyone else; possibly stratified by some score of age, prior medical conditions / risk factors, etc.