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

#241

Post by niyrjczs » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:09 AM UTC

schrodinger wrote: post #238

jtxxwl2 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 healt…

> letting 40% of the population become obese "letting" seems like a strong verb. I'm all for empathy for those who struggle with maintaining a healthy weight—imagine being addicted to something that you must consume about 3 times a day to stay alive—but it seems a stretch to lay the blame of obesity on the feet of public health experts. Are they also responsible for alcoholics? Other drug addicts?

They could set one simple achievable goal which would drastically reduce obesity: every single high schooler graduates as an athletic machine. The government could do it easily. Schools already require students to participate in gym class, the problem is that it's an absolute joke. They could change that if they wanted. The health benefits are obvious. It's not like they don't know it's an option. They just make excuses for why they can't make any progress fighting obesity, probably because they don't want a healthy population.

Of course some in shape people will become fat as adults, but almost all fat adolescents stay fat until they die.

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

#242

Post by jakear » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:10 AM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #220

interestica wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 brea…

The most annoying thing for me is how easily people can game the “healthcare worker” definition. I know folks who are on the board of healthcare facilities, zero interaction with patients of course, and they get first priority and have already completed both rounds. Similarly, folks who stay at home all of the time to take care of disabled family get first priority, despite no external contact.

Meanwhile, teachers who are forced to stay in a confined space with dozens of little rugrats who despise wearing masks, especially when coughing/sneezing, still haven’t gotten anything.

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

#243

Post by riffraff » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:21 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #235

sdeep27 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such confidence about "gold standard" is hard to justify without ANY studies on mRNA long-term effects (how could there be > this is brand new vaccine technology and delivery). I would actually argue it is "safer" to take a more traditional vaccine (which have a long history of safety studies, including longer-term one) than an untested (in the long-term sense) mRNA vaccine, given equal efficacies. So, maybe not the…

The J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines are both also very new technology. Here's the "platform" for the AstraZeneca vaccine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChAdOx1 They are somewhat similar to the mRNA vaccines, triggering cells in the recipients body to produce the SARS-CoV2 protein, but the mechanism is different, they use a virus to introduce the instructions into the cells instead of mRNA. The carrier virus has been alt…

But the Russian and Chinese vaccines are "old school", right?

It would be fun if the least trusted sources ended up being the more reliable ones.

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

#244

Post by henrikschroder » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:25 AM UTC

greesil wrote: post #205

henrikschroder wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What specific policy are you suggesting? I think the biggest problem is the hyper-focus on a single cause of death. People look at the covid-19 death numbers, and have no idea how many people actually die in a normal year. And this causes people to focus on ensuring nobody dies of covid-19 to the exclusion of everything else. Yes, it absolutely sucks that a lot of vulnerable people in elder care facilities have die…

Yeah, this is a false dichotomy. There are other options other than lockdown vs no lockdown. You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden. Their economy suffered despite not locking down last year because guess what, it turns out people don't want to go out and risk dying. So if your economy is doing to have mass unemployment…

> You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden.

I think that first sentence sounds like a great strategy, and it's perfectly in line with what I suggested. Coincidentally, that's exactly what Sweden did as part of its strategy. So I'm not so sure how Sweden is an example of the opposite?

> guess what, it turns out people don't want to go out and risk dying.

If people are voluntarily doing that, what's the point of having the government enforce the lockdown?

> So if your economy is doing to have mass unemployment, you may as well do that and avoid the death and injury.

Again, lockdowns aren't 100% free. They also cause death, injury, and misery. Suicides are up, domestic violence is up, cancer screenings are down, drug overdoses are up, alcoholism is up, depression is way up. Poor kids in the US who relied on school lunches as their only decent meal of the day are suffering nutritionally, and will lose years of their life because of malnutrition now.

I have a friend who was sick with covid for months, and she's got a long way to recovery. I have a friend who just got out of the ICU after having been there a couple of weeks, he's in shit shape, but alive. That sucks. But I also have friends who were close to suicide because they were unemployed, isolated, and really depressed. That also sucks.

There are no easy choices in this mess, and yet lockdowns are sold as an easy choice by people for whom it is easy, and failure to lock down is portrayed as some sort of moral failing, which is horrifying to me.

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

#245

Post by angry_octet » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #197

angry_octet wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are a number of direct risks related to the Adenovirus itself. Multiple adenovirus vaccine programs have been scrapped over the years because of these issues: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vect... For example, famously, one Ad-based HIV vaccine was found to increase the chances of getting HIV . People still theorize that it might be due to the vector itself: https://www.thelancet.com/j…

Yes other complications are possible, I had thought from the wording it was a concern about allergic reactions.

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

#246

Post by boulos » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:33 AM UTC

m-ee wrote: post #233

mlyle wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re absolutely right, but I didn’t want the overall message to get lost in the details. I’ve been seeing people parrot the “AZ is actually much better than it looks because they included asymptomatic patients” for months now and it’s just incorrect.

I’m honestly confused! Can you point me to your source for the excerpts in your sibling comments?

Edit: reading your lancet link now (sorry about that).

My understanding from reading the description of the Moderna results was “XX / YYY people developed covid; but we didn’t test everyone in the YYY set” (so people who definitely got it / went to a hospital / whatever are in XX, but asymptomatic cases may not be). Agreed?

My understanding of the AZ studies (despite all their other mistakes) is that participants were being tested weekly, regardless of symptoms. Is that incorrect, or are you suggesting something else?

I definitely don’t want to repeating misinformation.

Second Edit: after looking at table 2 in [1] and comparing the results to the common headline “about 60% effective” [2], it seems like media are reporting the “two standard doses” results. That might be what some folks end up doing, and it’s regretful that the study design went all over the place.

Either way, thanks for the nuance! I will update my future comments to note that the confidence intervals including the asymptomatic results are wildly large, such that they need serious discounting.

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55862233

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

#247

Post by tinus_hn » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:33 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.

So how can there be claims like ‘there are more side effects’ without any data?

You don’t get to make claims and then require someone else to provide data to disprove them. If you make the claim you have to provide the data yourself.

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

#248

Post by burlesona » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:46 AM UTC

schrodinger wrote: post #228

interestica wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

Controversial, but what if we instead gave them to those that wanted it the most? In other words, let the 20–30 yr olds that are itching to socialize & travel get it; it may not seem fair, but as a "harm reduction" strategy could still make sense. If they're going to be going out to dinner, meeting friends, and traveling anyway, might as well inoculate them…

I believe this is what Indonesia is doing.

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

#249

Post by burlesona » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:55 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?…

One idea I haven’t seen discussed, which I think is interesting although politically intractable:

What if we allocated doses geographically, with a goal of (1) getting some regions fully reopened and back to work immediately, but also (2) establishing a sort of inverse quarantine zone where we’ve stamped out COVID and keep it to zero.

Again I think in the real world this won’t work because we already have shown the western world largely won’t obey quarantines / lockdowns etc.

But if our primary goal was to eliminate the disease - which seems worthwhile if we could pull it off - then a geographic approach might be more effective than a distributed approach.

Specifically, I think you’d have a better chance of getting vaccination rates into the 90% range and subsequently via travel restriction keep these green zones clean so that even those who refuse the vaccination aren’t acting as a reservoir for it.

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

#250

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 5:55 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]