5 ms·

I'm not sure there's enough data at the moment to give an answer. Each of the approved vaccines had a double-blind placebo-controlled study run, but on differen

I'm not sure there's enough data at the moment to give an answer. Each of the approved vaccines had a double-blind placebo-controlled study run, but on different timelines and in different locations, so it's hard to conclude much from small differences between the reported numbers.

ehsankia 6y ago
Right, unless you do a full trial with all vaccines side by side with similar sample/timeline, it's not really possible to tell. Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. The dosage also matters. J&J for example decided to study one dose first, but are now doing a phase trial to see how good the immunity is for a 2-dose program. So potentially if you get a second dose (maybe down the line), you will also get a stronger immunity closer to the other 2 dose vaccines.
- hannob 6y ago
  > Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. But we're talking 91% vs. 76%.
  - itake 6y ago
    You can't compare the 91% vs 76% numbers because the 91% test was performed in the late summer last year between virus waves and in a location with an less-contagious form of the virus. Whereas the JJ virus was tested during the fall 2nd-wave in South Africa when there was a lot of cases and more cases of a higher infection strain. The only fair comparison would be if all of the testing was done at the same time in the same geographic location. source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A&feature=youtu.be
    - boc 6y ago
      There was a new, recent study that showed that the mRNA vaccines were still 90% effective among healthcare workers during the big surge in December/January period when the variants were certainly present.[1] This doesn't mean the J&J vaccine is bad by any means, but it does show how incredible the new mRNA vaccines have performed. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/29/real-world-study-by-cdc-shows-pfizer-and-moderna-vaccines-were-90-effective/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/29/real-world-study-by-cdc-...
      - ehsankia 6y ago
        From that same study: > The study suggested that even the first dose of vaccine was 80% effective at preventing infection Which is within the error bar of J&J's one dose result in the US (75%). We will have to see the results of the 2-dose J&J trial coming out soon, but I expect that to be around 90% too. It's also worth noting that some places in the world (UK, Canada), have been using 1-dose pfizer regimen to get the most out of their short supply, with possible 2nd shot 3-4 months down the line. Similarly, we could see a delayed J&J booster being given to increase immunity to matching 90%.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      No, the 91% from Pfizer is just announced and covers roughtly 6 months, including up until at least the middle of march, at which time the variants were circulating. Notably this covers the entire time of the J&J trials. Of course they used somewhat different geographical regions so you can't compare them, but still the 91% does include variants.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Right, but as the comment above was pointing out, there are many other factors. Pfizer/Moderena both did their trial from July-November, whereas J&J did their phase 3 from Sept-January. Looking at the COVID case graph [0], you can see J&J was tested at the peak. Not only that, J&J was party tested in the UK and South Africa, when the two new variants were starting to take over. [0] https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/02/15/seamus-coronavirus-d3-us-map-20200312_wide-fa4e52108f37e9bc8a97850e22ec10063bd4fa22.png https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/02/15/seamus-coronavir...
    - bgentry 6y ago
      Just this week we also saw data from Pfizer & Moderna mRNA vaccine rollouts to frontline healthcare workers in December (at a time of peak infection and emerging variants) that touted 80% effectiveness after a single dose, 90% after two doses. I'm struggling to find a reason not to interpret that as further evidence that the mRNA vaccines are in fact more effective than the J&J shot. Medical workers take precautions better than the general public, maybe? But they're also far more exposed.
      - ehsankia 6y ago
        80% with one dose seems right in line with 75% with one dose of J&J (in the US). For what it's worth, J&J is also now doing a phase trial of two doses, and I expect that to be around 90% too. So yes, once you take into account the +/- 5% error, they seem to be pretty much equal.

ehsankia 6y ago

Right, unless you do a full trial with all vaccines side by side with similar sample/timeline, it's not really possible to tell. Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. The dosage also matters. J&J for example decided to study one dose first, but are now doing a phase trial to see how good the immunity is for a 2-dose program. So potentially if you get a second dose (maybe down the line), you will also get a stronger immunity closer to the other 2 dose vaccines.

hannob 6y ago
> Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. But we're talking 91% vs. 76%.
- itake 6y ago
  You can't compare the 91% vs 76% numbers because the 91% test was performed in the late summer last year between virus waves and in a location with an less-contagious form of the virus. Whereas the JJ virus was tested during the fall 2nd-wave in South Africa when there was a lot of cases and more cases of a higher infection strain. The only fair comparison would be if all of the testing was done at the same time in the same geographic location. source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A&feature=youtu.be
  - boc 6y ago
    There was a new, recent study that showed that the mRNA vaccines were still 90% effective among healthcare workers during the big surge in December/January period when the variants were certainly present.[1] This doesn't mean the J&J vaccine is bad by any means, but it does show how incredible the new mRNA vaccines have performed. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/29/real-world-study-by-cdc-shows-pfizer-and-moderna-vaccines-were-90-effective/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/29/real-world-study-by-cdc-...
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      From that same study: > The study suggested that even the first dose of vaccine was 80% effective at preventing infection Which is within the error bar of J&J's one dose result in the US (75%). We will have to see the results of the 2-dose J&J trial coming out soon, but I expect that to be around 90% too. It's also worth noting that some places in the world (UK, Canada), have been using 1-dose pfizer regimen to get the most out of their short supply, with possible 2nd shot 3-4 months down the line. Similarly, we could see a delayed J&J booster being given to increase immunity to matching 90%.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    No, the 91% from Pfizer is just announced and covers roughtly 6 months, including up until at least the middle of march, at which time the variants were circulating. Notably this covers the entire time of the J&J trials. Of course they used somewhat different geographical regions so you can't compare them, but still the 91% does include variants.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Right, but as the comment above was pointing out, there are many other factors. Pfizer/Moderena both did their trial from July-November, whereas J&J did their phase 3 from Sept-January. Looking at the COVID case graph [0], you can see J&J was tested at the peak. Not only that, J&J was party tested in the UK and South Africa, when the two new variants were starting to take over. [0] https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/02/15/seamus-coronavirus-d3-us-map-20200312_wide-fa4e52108f37e9bc8a97850e22ec10063bd4fa22.png https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/02/15/seamus-coronavir...
  - bgentry 6y ago
    Just this week we also saw data from Pfizer & Moderna mRNA vaccine rollouts to frontline healthcare workers in December (at a time of peak infection and emerging variants) that touted 80% effectiveness after a single dose, 90% after two doses. I'm struggling to find a reason not to interpret that as further evidence that the mRNA vaccines are in fact more effective than the J&J shot. Medical workers take precautions better than the general public, maybe? But they're also far more exposed.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      80% with one dose seems right in line with 75% with one dose of J&J (in the US). For what it's worth, J&J is also now doing a phase trial of two doses, and I expect that to be around 90% too. So yes, once you take into account the +/- 5% error, they seem to be pretty much equal.