7 ms·

"whichever one is available to you" is not an infantile answer. It's a rational answer. Humans are notoriously irrational in their decision making, and focusi

"whichever one is available to you" is not an infantile answer. It's a rational answer. Humans are notoriously irrational in their decision making, and focusing on which is better in order to make the best health decision may lead to making a decision that is far worse.

smnrchrds 6y ago
Not the OP, but let's rephrase: if you go to the clinic to get the shot and they tell you they have so many doses of all vaccines available that it's up to you to choose which one to take, and either way, you are going to get the shot today, which one should you choose? And how much does this choice matter in your expected health outcomes?
- josefresco 6y ago
  I would ask the doctor and not trust my ignorance (as a non-medical professional) to provide me the answer. Everything being equal? I'm taking the shot that doesn't require me to come back for a second.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    And what would the doctor say? And please don't reply "whatever the correct answer is", because then I will have to ask "what is the correct answer" and we end up in an infinite loop.
    - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
      The guidance provided so far is that all three shots are equally effective. That's likely what the doctor would say. From my own, semi-informed research: * The effectiveness of J&J is likely under-reported because it was tested during a significant outbreak. * Moderna seems to have slightly higher reports of side effects compared to Pfizer, though unlikely to be statistically significant. * I am a young, healthy person. With that calculus: 1) I'd pick whichever was available to me the fastest. In my area immunizations are by appointment and segmented by vaccine. I'd rather have Moderna tomorrow than wait a week for an appointment for another to open up. 1.a) In the unlikely case that I had a choice between the shots, I'd select J&J, as it has been shown to be safe and effective with one shot. This simplifies my life. In reality, scheduling a vaccine seems to be the hardest. No one of the ~10 or so I've talked to who have had their first shot between January and early March have had the ability to chose. When I received my first dose of Pfizer last month I didn't have a choice of options; I was on four or five call lists and took the one that offered me an appointment. My wife received Moderna because her work coordinated mass vaccinations and that's what they offered. A coworker received J&J because there were leftover doses that needed to be administered. Perhaps that's changed, but as many states open up to 16+ I suspect it'll remain the biggest challenge.
      - casefields 6y ago
        Using the words equally effective is a lie though. An uncharitable take being government propaganda being repeated because bureaucrats/politicians see it as a noble lie. If these studies only produced a pass/fail then that would be acceptable, but we all know that's not how studies are done.
- balls187 6y ago
  Which is a fair question, and a fair way to raise it. Calling the standard answer infantile was where I took issue. Assuming your question wasn't rhetorical--in the hypothetical scenario you described based on today's info, I would opt for J&J, 1) as a matter of convenience 2) The technology behind J&J is more mature
- neither_color 6y ago
  J&J, one and done. In any future scenario where the vaccinated have privilege over the non-vaccinated(as has been proposed with vaccine passports), then J&J is the better choice. 1.5 months to freedom vs 15 days. People can say out loud otherwise because it's not the right thing to say, but deep down J&J offers the best incentive for a non-vulnerable risk-group member. "Whichever one is available to you" is a platitude that assumes all our motivations for getting it are the same. You're doing it out of concern for X, I'm doing it because chances are I'll have to, etc.
  - bgentry 6y ago
    Data from the study released this week (of frontline healthcare workers vaccinated in December) showed that the mRNA shots had a high efficacy just two weeks after the first dose, likely higher than the efficacy of the J&J shot. Just a single data point from one study, but I raise it only to point out that it may in fact not be the case that the J&J shot provides better immunity vs two weeks after the first mRNA dose.
    - paconbork 6y ago
      If your goal is just to get a vaccine passport then J&J will still be the better option until regulators acknowledge that one shot of mRNA is about as good shrug
  - balls187 6y ago
    There is new data showing the efficacy for Pfizer is better for children age 12 and up. The point being; it's way too early to know which is better and why, and to base a decision on that data.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    That assumes that, at this point in time, having a "vaccine passport" confers some concrete benefit. It's also more like 2 weeks vs. 5 weeks. The other factor is if you end up getting a vaccine somewhere 2 hours away or something like that. Which is a reasonable consideration but fairly minor in the scheme of things.
y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
If someone is asking for more information and is willing to learn the details, it's counter-productive to give them a canned answer like "whichever one is available to you". You're encouraging ignorance, not being "rational" as you put it. Lack of transparency is what sows the distrust in the first place. Acting like an elitist by withholding the information because "you're not smart enough to make this decision" is what makes the approach so infantile.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  It's a difficult question. You don't want to infantilize people, and there does seem to be a trend towards manipulating the informational landscape in order to create better outcomes in people. At the same time, this is a country where 45% of people believe ghosts are real and 35% have been in contact with someone after the've died. You absolutely do not want people at the margin holding out for a longer time to get the vaccine they think is best when they could have been vaccinated a month ago.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
    You make a valid statement, but it doesn't appear to valid in this case. I don't think the demographics of this platform fall under that umbrella. If someone on here is asking for more information and articulating their reasons for it well, there's no reason to hide it. There's also an equal risk that if people don't know enough about the vaccines, they won't get any of them at all let alone deciding which to get. Seldom is it that I believe withholding information will have a better effect than being adequately transparent; keyword here being adequate because you still need to explain and emphasize strongly in plain English why it would be detrimental to wait it out. Treating people like idiots yields worse results than making them believe they're intelligent (be it true or not). You can look at our political landscape for evidence of that. That's just my opinion of course.
    - 6y ago
cwhiz 6y ago
>Humans are notoriously irrational in their decision making, and focusing on which is better in order to make the best health decision may lead to making a decision that is far worse. This doesn’t matter on an individual level. There are public health reasons to try and get as many people as vaccinated as possible, no matter the vaccine. But aggregate math means little to the individual person. The difference between. 70% and 90% is fairly profound, profound enough to weigh against individual people making a decision on which vaccine to get. It’s not irrational at all for an individual to prefer the vaccine with the highest efficacy. It’s hubris, or insanity, on the part of public health officials to expect an entire nation of people to put individualism aside for the sake of greater good.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > It’s hubris, or insanity, on the part of public health officials to expect an entire nation of people to put individualism aside for the sake of greater good. It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. It's a prisoners dilemna and the government should encourage people to choose the cooperate approach by imposing incentives and manipulating the informational landscape. It's the same reason why I support government recycling initiatives or the general idea of taxation.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    > It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. Who is to say it’s a month wait? That’s the issue.
- balls187 6y ago
  > It’s not irrational at all for an individual to prefer the vaccine with the highest efficacy. Clearly I disagree with the rationality--you're comparing the efficacy rates of being vaccinated among Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J. That's irrational--instead a person should compare the efficacy rate of being vaccinated by any of the available vaccines vs the efficacy rate of not being vaccinated due to holding out for personal preference of a vaccine.
asveikau 6y ago
I think it's especially true because the most important aspect of vaccination is not really protection of the individual, even if it does accomplish that. It's getting as many people as possible vaccinated so that society as a whole has a good handle on the disease. If the 90% effective one is supply constrained and has this complicated 2 dose thing, and the 60-some % is simple and available, you're still doing your part to make a serious dent in the spread of the disease overall. And if the death rate of covid is some low number x, making it 0.3x is a pretty good deal.
libraryatnight 6y ago
No, it's a non-answer. If someone asked the question, they deserve a real answer. That's a great PR answer for advertising the importance of the vaccine, it's not an answer to a pointed and specific question from an educated person with access to either vaccine.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > access to either vaccine. Is this your situation? I hadn't heard of this happening for anyone.
  - libraryatnight 6y ago
    Yes, I can get J&J from places like Costco or the County sites, I can get Moderna and Pfizer from the state sites.
    - balls187 6y ago
      And which did you choose and why? Or did you ask, and were told who cares, just get it.
  - paconbork 6y ago
    Indiana here, I can get Moderna at most sites nearby, Pfizer at Walgreens/CVS, or J&J by driving to Indy
  - dsissitka 6y ago
    In Florida you can book an appointment at Publix on Monday or Friday if you want Moderna or Wednesday if you want Johnson & Johnson: https://www.publix.com/covid-vaccine/florida https://www.publix.com/covid-vaccine/florida
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dahfizz 6y ago
I hate this toxic anti-thinking attitude. You may think people should get whatever vaccine is available to them. That is fine. But to actively discourage discussion and information comparing the vaccines is downright Orwellian.
- balls187 6y ago
  That clearly was not what my comment conveyed. The OP's desire to be able to more easily get information to compare was not under question. It's Loserthink to believe every person has the medical background and qualified to weigh the medical information on vaccines to make an informed decision to wait for their choice of vaccines.

smnrchrds 6y ago

Not the OP, but let's rephrase: if you go to the clinic to get the shot and they tell you they have so many doses of all vaccines available that it's up to you to choose which one to take, and either way, you are going to get the shot today, which one should you choose? And how much does this choice matter in your expected health outcomes?

josefresco 6y ago
I would ask the doctor and not trust my ignorance (as a non-medical professional) to provide me the answer. Everything being equal? I'm taking the shot that doesn't require me to come back for a second.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  And what would the doctor say? And please don't reply "whatever the correct answer is", because then I will have to ask "what is the correct answer" and we end up in an infinite loop.
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
    The guidance provided so far is that all three shots are equally effective. That's likely what the doctor would say. From my own, semi-informed research: * The effectiveness of J&J is likely under-reported because it was tested during a significant outbreak. * Moderna seems to have slightly higher reports of side effects compared to Pfizer, though unlikely to be statistically significant. * I am a young, healthy person. With that calculus: 1) I'd pick whichever was available to me the fastest. In my area immunizations are by appointment and segmented by vaccine. I'd rather have Moderna tomorrow than wait a week for an appointment for another to open up. 1.a) In the unlikely case that I had a choice between the shots, I'd select J&J, as it has been shown to be safe and effective with one shot. This simplifies my life. In reality, scheduling a vaccine seems to be the hardest. No one of the ~10 or so I've talked to who have had their first shot between January and early March have had the ability to chose. When I received my first dose of Pfizer last month I didn't have a choice of options; I was on four or five call lists and took the one that offered me an appointment. My wife received Moderna because her work coordinated mass vaccinations and that's what they offered. A coworker received J&J because there were leftover doses that needed to be administered. Perhaps that's changed, but as many states open up to 16+ I suspect it'll remain the biggest challenge.
    - casefields 6y ago
      Using the words equally effective is a lie though. An uncharitable take being government propaganda being repeated because bureaucrats/politicians see it as a noble lie. If these studies only produced a pass/fail then that would be acceptable, but we all know that's not how studies are done.
balls187 6y ago
Which is a fair question, and a fair way to raise it. Calling the standard answer infantile was where I took issue. Assuming your question wasn't rhetorical--in the hypothetical scenario you described based on today's info, I would opt for J&J, 1) as a matter of convenience 2) The technology behind J&J is more mature
neither_color 6y ago
J&J, one and done. In any future scenario where the vaccinated have privilege over the non-vaccinated(as has been proposed with vaccine passports), then J&J is the better choice. 1.5 months to freedom vs 15 days. People can say out loud otherwise because it's not the right thing to say, but deep down J&J offers the best incentive for a non-vulnerable risk-group member. "Whichever one is available to you" is a platitude that assumes all our motivations for getting it are the same. You're doing it out of concern for X, I'm doing it because chances are I'll have to, etc.
- bgentry 6y ago
  Data from the study released this week (of frontline healthcare workers vaccinated in December) showed that the mRNA shots had a high efficacy just two weeks after the first dose, likely higher than the efficacy of the J&J shot. Just a single data point from one study, but I raise it only to point out that it may in fact not be the case that the J&J shot provides better immunity vs two weeks after the first mRNA dose.
  - paconbork 6y ago
    If your goal is just to get a vaccine passport then J&J will still be the better option until regulators acknowledge that one shot of mRNA is about as good shrug
- balls187 6y ago
  There is new data showing the efficacy for Pfizer is better for children age 12 and up. The point being; it's way too early to know which is better and why, and to base a decision on that data.
- ghaff 6y ago
  That assumes that, at this point in time, having a "vaccine passport" confers some concrete benefit. It's also more like 2 weeks vs. 5 weeks. The other factor is if you end up getting a vaccine somewhere 2 hours away or something like that. Which is a reasonable consideration but fairly minor in the scheme of things.

y-c-o-m-b 6y ago

If someone is asking for more information and is willing to learn the details, it's counter-productive to give them a canned answer like "whichever one is available to you". You're encouraging ignorance, not being "rational" as you put it. Lack of transparency is what sows the distrust in the first place. Acting like an elitist by withholding the information because "you're not smart enough to make this decision" is what makes the approach so infantile.

whimsicalism 6y ago
It's a difficult question. You don't want to infantilize people, and there does seem to be a trend towards manipulating the informational landscape in order to create better outcomes in people. At the same time, this is a country where 45% of people believe ghosts are real and 35% have been in contact with someone after the've died. You absolutely do not want people at the margin holding out for a longer time to get the vaccine they think is best when they could have been vaccinated a month ago.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
  You make a valid statement, but it doesn't appear to valid in this case. I don't think the demographics of this platform fall under that umbrella. If someone on here is asking for more information and articulating their reasons for it well, there's no reason to hide it. There's also an equal risk that if people don't know enough about the vaccines, they won't get any of them at all let alone deciding which to get. Seldom is it that I believe withholding information will have a better effect than being adequately transparent; keyword here being adequate because you still need to explain and emphasize strongly in plain English why it would be detrimental to wait it out. Treating people like idiots yields worse results than making them believe they're intelligent (be it true or not). You can look at our political landscape for evidence of that. That's just my opinion of course.
  - 6y ago

cwhiz 6y ago

>Humans are notoriously irrational in their decision making, and focusing on which is better in order to make the best health decision may lead to making a decision that is far worse. This doesn’t matter on an individual level. There are public health reasons to try and get as many people as vaccinated as possible, no matter the vaccine. But aggregate math means little to the individual person. The difference between. 70% and 90% is fairly profound, profound enough to weigh against individual people making a decision on which vaccine to get. It’s not irrational at all for an individual to prefer the vaccine with the highest efficacy. It’s hubris, or insanity, on the part of public health officials to expect an entire nation of people to put individualism aside for the sake of greater good.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> It’s hubris, or insanity, on the part of public health officials to expect an entire nation of people to put individualism aside for the sake of greater good. It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. It's a prisoners dilemna and the government should encourage people to choose the cooperate approach by imposing incentives and manipulating the informational landscape. It's the same reason why I support government recycling initiatives or the general idea of taxation.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  > It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. Who is to say it’s a month wait? That’s the issue.
balls187 6y ago
> It’s not irrational at all for an individual to prefer the vaccine with the highest efficacy. Clearly I disagree with the rationality--you're comparing the efficacy rates of being vaccinated among Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J. That's irrational--instead a person should compare the efficacy rate of being vaccinated by any of the available vaccines vs the efficacy rate of not being vaccinated due to holding out for personal preference of a vaccine.

asveikau 6y ago

I think it's especially true because the most important aspect of vaccination is not really protection of the individual, even if it does accomplish that. It's getting as many people as possible vaccinated so that society as a whole has a good handle on the disease. If the 90% effective one is supply constrained and has this complicated 2 dose thing, and the 60-some % is simple and available, you're still doing your part to make a serious dent in the spread of the disease overall. And if the death rate of covid is some low number x, making it 0.3x is a pretty good deal.

libraryatnight 6y ago

No, it's a non-answer. If someone asked the question, they deserve a real answer. That's a great PR answer for advertising the importance of the vaccine, it's not an answer to a pointed and specific question from an educated person with access to either vaccine.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> access to either vaccine. Is this your situation? I hadn't heard of this happening for anyone.
- libraryatnight 6y ago
  Yes, I can get J&J from places like Costco or the County sites, I can get Moderna and Pfizer from the state sites.
  - balls187 6y ago
    And which did you choose and why? Or did you ask, and were told who cares, just get it.
- paconbork 6y ago
  Indiana here, I can get Moderna at most sites nearby, Pfizer at Walgreens/CVS, or J&J by driving to Indy
- dsissitka 6y ago
  In Florida you can book an appointment at Publix on Monday or Friday if you want Moderna or Wednesday if you want Johnson & Johnson: https://www.publix.com/covid-vaccine/florida https://www.publix.com/covid-vaccine/florida
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dahfizz 6y ago

I hate this toxic anti-thinking attitude. You may think people should get whatever vaccine is available to them. That is fine. But to actively discourage discussion and information comparing the vaccines is downright Orwellian.

balls187 6y ago
That clearly was not what my comment conveyed. The OP's desire to be able to more easily get information to compare was not under question. It's Loserthink to believe every person has the medical background and qualified to weigh the medical information on vaccines to make an informed decision to wait for their choice of vaccines.