8 ms·

I really don't know why this term is thrown around in the news so much without explanation. What I thought at first (and I think is the obvious interpretation)

I really don't know why this term is thrown around in the news so much without explanation. What I thought at first (and I think is the obvious interpretation) is that with an effectiveness of 90%, 10% of vaccinated people have no protection at all.

maxerickson 6y ago
The companies have every incentive to publish the good results and the media doesn't care about explaining things clearly. I'm not sure I can envision a reasonable way to embargo the numbers.
xeromal 6y ago
Yeah, J&J especially got the shit end of the stick on that. 72% effective, in the US, at no symptoms, but 100% effective at preventing death but every talks like it's a worthless vaccine.
- clarkevans 6y ago
  Moreover, it's only one shot. J&J is currently enrolling for a 2-shot trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948), unfortunately, the control arm .. is no vaccination. I can imagine how this may hinder recruitment.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    I wonder if us legacy J&J users will be able to get a second dose at some point.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      That is the plan if it is helpful, but it depends on a lot of factors. First, of course how much better is a second shot vs one - if the difference is minimal it probably isn't worth it. I'm guessing that we will forever say the difference is too minimal - it works well enough with one shot, so why not give the second shot as a first shot to someone else? Of course this gets mixed in those who might be more vulnerable (and thus more helped with a second shot) if we can figure that out. And there is the possibility of buy a second shot for you (at double price but that isn't stated), and we send a free shot to some poor person in [pick a poor country]. There is also the question of do we reach herd immunity - if Covid isn't spreading in your country and you are not traveling to a different country where it is why make your arm sore? Probably more considerations, but the above should get you started thinking of them.
      - xeromal 6y ago
        My interest is purely from avoiding further unpleasantness from catching COVID19. I took the J&J vaccine and ended up around 103F fever for a few hours so I have an inkling if I end up in the 28% who still has symptoms when catching COVID19, would I go through another bout of fevers and chills. Of course I could ride it out, but if I had the opportunity to avoid, I would!
    - antattack 6y ago
      First dose of Russian Sputnik V vaccine uses the same adenovirus as J&J vaccine, both of virus vector type. Second dose of Sputnik V is using different adenovirus. I would think J&J second dose would have to use different adenovirus also.
      - bluGill 6y ago
        There has been a lot of speculation on that. It isn't an unreasonable idea. However we don't know if it is true or not. We will have to wait for the 2 dose trials to see how they turn out.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  I guess we hang out in different strata of society since all my friends want the J&J virus if they get a choice because it's one and done.
- HWR_14 6y ago
  Well, it seems like it's 66%, not 72%, at dealing with the variants. And, yes it prevents death at 100%. But you're ignoring the middle category - serious and long term symptoms. This is where there's a significant difference between the mRNA vaccines and J&J. A lot of people are worried about long-COVID and permanent damage.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    It was 72% in the US as I pointed out in my comment.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccines-johnsonjohns/jj-covid-19-vaccine-is-72-effective-in-the-u-s-and-66-overall-in-large-trial-idUSL1N2K406P https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccines-... J&J was 85% effective at preventing severe reactions and hospitalizations and 100% effective at preventing death. The 72%, in the US, was for mild symptoms.
    - HWR_14 6y ago
      Yes, and the mRNA vaccines were 100% effective at preventing severe reactions and hospitalizations as well as 100% effective at preventing death. That's a significant difference. Would I take the J&J over nothing, of course. If they offered me a choice I would take an mRNA vaccine. There's nothing wrong with saying X is much better than Y, Y is much better than nothing. I get from a public health standpoint you may want to blur the difference so people take the first available dose because there is a huge value to herd immunity, and a society with 100% J&J shots is going to be safer - probably even for the vaccinated given herd immunity - than 20% with mRNA shots. But I won't pretend they are equal while doing so. Meanwhile, the 72% vs. 66% was when the world had variants not seen in the US. They're here now. I think it more likely that the vaccine has less efficacy against the variants than the vaccines have special "efficacy +" modes that are geoblocked.

maxerickson 6y ago

The companies have every incentive to publish the good results and the media doesn't care about explaining things clearly. I'm not sure I can envision a reasonable way to embargo the numbers.

xeromal 6y ago

Yeah, J&J especially got the shit end of the stick on that. 72% effective, in the US, at no symptoms, but 100% effective at preventing death but every talks like it's a worthless vaccine.

clarkevans 6y ago
Moreover, it's only one shot. J&J is currently enrolling for a 2-shot trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948), unfortunately, the control arm .. is no vaccination. I can imagine how this may hinder recruitment.
- xeromal 6y ago
  I wonder if us legacy J&J users will be able to get a second dose at some point.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    That is the plan if it is helpful, but it depends on a lot of factors. First, of course how much better is a second shot vs one - if the difference is minimal it probably isn't worth it. I'm guessing that we will forever say the difference is too minimal - it works well enough with one shot, so why not give the second shot as a first shot to someone else? Of course this gets mixed in those who might be more vulnerable (and thus more helped with a second shot) if we can figure that out. And there is the possibility of buy a second shot for you (at double price but that isn't stated), and we send a free shot to some poor person in [pick a poor country]. There is also the question of do we reach herd immunity - if Covid isn't spreading in your country and you are not traveling to a different country where it is why make your arm sore? Probably more considerations, but the above should get you started thinking of them.
    - xeromal 6y ago
      My interest is purely from avoiding further unpleasantness from catching COVID19. I took the J&J vaccine and ended up around 103F fever for a few hours so I have an inkling if I end up in the 28% who still has symptoms when catching COVID19, would I go through another bout of fevers and chills. Of course I could ride it out, but if I had the opportunity to avoid, I would!
  - antattack 6y ago
    First dose of Russian Sputnik V vaccine uses the same adenovirus as J&J vaccine, both of virus vector type. Second dose of Sputnik V is using different adenovirus. I would think J&J second dose would have to use different adenovirus also.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      There has been a lot of speculation on that. It isn't an unreasonable idea. However we don't know if it is true or not. We will have to wait for the 2 dose trials to see how they turn out.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I guess we hang out in different strata of society since all my friends want the J&J virus if they get a choice because it's one and done.
HWR_14 6y ago
Well, it seems like it's 66%, not 72%, at dealing with the variants. And, yes it prevents death at 100%. But you're ignoring the middle category - serious and long term symptoms. This is where there's a significant difference between the mRNA vaccines and J&J. A lot of people are worried about long-COVID and permanent damage.
- xeromal 6y ago
  It was 72% in the US as I pointed out in my comment.
- xeromal 6y ago
  https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccines-johnsonjohns/jj-covid-19-vaccine-is-72-effective-in-the-u-s-and-66-overall-in-large-trial-idUSL1N2K406P https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccines-... J&J was 85% effective at preventing severe reactions and hospitalizations and 100% effective at preventing death. The 72%, in the US, was for mild symptoms.
  - HWR_14 6y ago
    Yes, and the mRNA vaccines were 100% effective at preventing severe reactions and hospitalizations as well as 100% effective at preventing death. That's a significant difference. Would I take the J&J over nothing, of course. If they offered me a choice I would take an mRNA vaccine. There's nothing wrong with saying X is much better than Y, Y is much better than nothing. I get from a public health standpoint you may want to blur the difference so people take the first available dose because there is a huge value to herd immunity, and a society with 100% J&J shots is going to be safer - probably even for the vaccinated given herd immunity - than 20% with mRNA shots. But I won't pretend they are equal while doing so. Meanwhile, the 72% vs. 66% was when the world had variants not seen in the US. They're here now. I think it more likely that the vaccine has less efficacy against the variants than the vaccines have special "efficacy +" modes that are geoblocked.