5 ms·
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
by 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 agoData 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 agoIf 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 agoThere 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 agoThat 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.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]