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

221–230 of 274 posts

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

#221

Post by bluGill »

sdeep27 wrote: post #192
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…

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…

There is no scientifically plausible way for there to be long term side effects. RNA is critical to life, so if there were long term side effects life itself wouldn't even be possible.

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

#222

Post by bluGill »

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?…

Nobody knows. The experts have their ideas, but there is no way to be sure.

One problem is optimal needs to consider the real world, not the ideal world. West Virgina (typically the butt of backwards people jokes) has done more vaccinations per capita than any other state even though their allocation per capita is the same as other states. This is because that state has decided that the optimal strategy is getting vaccines in arms, not ensuring it is the ideal arms: by not having the overhead of checking eligibility they can give their doses faster which is better than a slower pace of only getting the vaccine into the right people.

Note, I simplified West Virgina's strategy, it is more complex. Just less complex than other states.

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

#223

Post by bluGill »

alexhutcheson wrote: post #74
Moto7451 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe that the FDA is holding them back? So far the process appears to be approval after the minimum of safety and effectiveness testing. This means that people won’t waste time or be harmed by a failed vaccine candidate. I don’t work in medicine and am just a bystander like most. Is there something I am missing?

The AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved for use in the UK since December, but the FDA isn't currently scheduled to approve it in the US until April.

The FDA isn't scheduled for anything. They told AZ long ago that their trail wouldn't meet FDA standards, and so AZ started a new trail that would. Everyone assumes the approval will happen in April, but that is just an educated guess.

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

#224

Post by bluGill »

dnautics wrote: post #169
neuronic wrote: post #154

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…

RNA is a basic part of life. if what you say is possible, then life itself wouldn't be possible.

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

#225

Post by sparrc »

mchusma wrote: post #200
Moto7451 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe that the FDA is holding them back? So far the process appears to be approval after the minimum of safety and effectiveness testing. This means that people won’t waste time or be harmed by a failed vaccine candidate. I don’t work in medicine and am just a bystander like most. Is there something I am missing?

The FDA has banned it I'm the US, it's holding them back.

No, they haven't. Johnson and Johnson hasn't applied for emergency authorization yet. Assuming they do next week and all goes well it will likely be available by March.

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

#226

Post by bluGill »

randomopining wrote: post #207
zeku wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with this is that it's the SECOND shot that gives you your long term immunity. If you only get one shot your immunity is allegedly going to wane somewhat quickly. edit: for pfizer & moderna.

Where did you see that part? Any reason why the 2nd one makes it last that much longer?

That is typically how the second shot works. We don't actually know.

It is possible the second shot isn't needed at all. It is possible that the first shot works for 45 days and then stops working completely. Experts doubt both of these extremes, but cannot actually say they are false because they don't know.

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

#227

Post by jtxxwl2 »

niyrjczs wrote: post #209
greedo wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes. I'm sure that a population that can't follow simple recommendations to wear a damn mask will listen to the CDC when it says to stop eating Big Macs. And if you would like to become educated on the government's role in fighting obesity, and its recommendations, you can go to https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html

Telling people not to eat McDonald's is the best you can come up with? How about requiring every high school student to spend two hours per day doing strenuous physical exercise in order to graduate? How about considering it a failure for a student to graduate without being in excellent athletic form, on par with the student being unable to do algebra? If the people in charge wanted to make that happen, they could do…

Thank you for illustrating my point.

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

#228

Post by schrodinger »

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?…

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…

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

#229

Post by tumblewit »

bluGill wrote: post #213
tpmx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dif…

from my understanding if you take a different vaccine your body treats it as a virus which it already knows from the first vaccine you took and then attacks the vaccine generating antibodies. So technically it should either work as a booster or if your body has forgotten about the virus (don't know how that works) then act as a first dose.

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

#230

Post by dnautics »

bluGill wrote: post #224
dnautics wrote: post #169

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…

RNA is a basic part of life. if what you say is possible, then life itself wouldn't be possible.

What? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrotransposon
Post reply on HN