4 ms·
> 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 ef
by Alex3917 6y ago
> 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.
- ulfw 6y agoThe evidence is literally in the post you're commenting on.
- bluGill 6y agoThe 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.
- Alex3917 6y ago> The mRNA vaccines are 95%, J%J is 66%. I get that, but what makes you think that mRNA are any more effective than the J&J? You can’t just compare the numbers across trials. Just because 95% is bigger then 66% doesn’t make it more effective.