Live data from Hacker News

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

cbc.ca

171–180 of 274 posts

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

#171
post #167
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they didn't have symptoms, they weren't counted in the headline efficacy numbers we're talking about.

"The primary outcome was virologically confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19, defined as a NAAT-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia)."

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 my…

Please, stop posting smart sounding misinformation.

> mRNA technology is new, but not unknown. They have been studied for more than a decade. mRNA vaccines do not contain a live virus and do not carry a risk of causing disease in the vaccinated person. mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person's DNA.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basic...

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

#173
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are concidered underlying conditions, people with "no underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total population.

We're talking about serious stuff: cancer, immune disorders, diabetes, obesity etc.

> obesity

That's >40% of US adults[1] and ~30% of UK adults[2] covered already.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

[2] https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/sta...

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

#174
post #163
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 questio…

The half dose and longer time efficacy numbers have confidence intervals around 50-60% wide, definitely need to do more testing on that. I agree its the biggest question to answer for them (aside from just getting cleaner data through the US trial that will hopefully report soon). I believe they were also doing a study with mixed doses of Oxford/Sputnik.

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

#175
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.

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

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 my…

Please, stop posting smart sounding misinformation. > mRNA technology is new, but not unknown. They have been studied for more than a decade. mRNA vaccines do not contain a live virus and do not carry a risk of causing disease in the vaccinated person. mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person's DNA. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-…

I have a phd in biochemistry. I can tell you this is categorically wrong: "mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person's DNA"

It should say almost never. It's low enough for the risk to be worth it, but posting actually wrong absolute statements risks causing a backlash, the last year should have taught us all this basic condition of humanity

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

#177
post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

Yeah, I don't get why the Astrazeneca vaccine approval in the US is being delayed till (reportedly) March. Is it because Pfizer and Moderna are US companies charging a lot more money vs. Oxford/Astrazeneca being UK and not making any money on their vaccine?

The US trial got delayed but is due to complete by March I think. It will resolve some questions raised from the UK trial. Besides this, it looks like AZ is way behind on production anyway. With UK and EU fighting over the doses, the US may take a while to get any.

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

#178
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand it's quite sad that we as humanity have already developed two vaccines with 95% (or even higher) effectiveness but are not able (or rather: are too greedy) to share this knowledge to vaccine every human on earth as fast as possible. Instead the US and Europe are putting trade restrictions in place to keep the vaccines for themselves. India and China are more than capable to produce the vaccines in i…

It's not a tech problem, it's a production problem. There are only a few companies on earth that are capable of producing the precursor chemicals for these mRNA vaccines, and until now they were geared towards producing small batch research drugs. They are expanding rapidly but production capacity is at 100%.

If we could (globally) build emergency public hospitals, why can't we build emergency public production facilities?

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

#179
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw this study from USC: https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/ You can't link to the exact thing, but choose "Coronavirus Risk Perceptions" and split by age. People under 40 believe that their risk of dying from the virus is over 10% on average. The actual risk for that age group is somewhere around 0.02%, which means they're overestimating their risk of dying by a factor of 500. Five hundred! It's mindboggling how wrong p…

I'm quite confident people probably over-estimate their chance of dying in a plane crash by a few orders of magnitude as well. People are careful about their own lives, which is probably a good survival mechanism. What specific policy are you suggesting? The more As far as I'm aware no place has let the virus spread uncontrollably, think everything was fine, and not lock down at some point. The policy clearly has to…

> 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 died of it, but it's equally tragic that a lot of them have died of cognitive decline due to not being allowed to see their family and friends, or not being allowed to see each other.

Or that people are dying or going to die because hospitals and patients alike are postponing care and checkups and routine surgeries, because they're afraid of hospitals being overrun with covid-19 patients, or because they're afraid hospitals will increase spread.

I belong to the privileged class of people who can work from home, I've done it for years, and I live far away from friends and family, so I've been doing weekly video calls for years. The effect for me, personally, is pretty much zero. A lot of people who drive policy are like me, and therefore think lockdowns are no big deal.

But lockdowns are absolutely miserable for a large amount of people. There's a very good reason that we're seeing violent anti-lockdown protests in several countries, because a lot of people are completely fed up with the restrictions.

So, in terms of specific policy, I want governments to encourage and enable people to isolate and distance and keep themselves safe, but I don't want them to enforce it. People have to be allowed to make their own choices, their own risk analysis, and live with the consequences. As we already do for a lot of things.

One example of encouragement is to have good sickpay policies in place, so that no-one feels they "have to" get to work even though they're sick or possibly infected, either out of social obligation or financial necessity.

> and I'm not sure discriminating by age and health is going to be some magical solution.

It's too hard to lock down and isolate a fraction of the population, therefore the solution is to lock down the entire population, except "essential" workers? This argument doesn't make sense to me.

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

#180
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

You are assuming that the 34 million with diabetes are in the workforce. Based on the age distributions of people with diabetes, most are probably retired or disabled.
Post reply on HN