4 ms·
There are 2 reasons for JNJ’s lower top line numbers. 1) There were more of the variants going around, not more of the original strain going around when JNJ wa
by quantgenius 6y ago
There are 2 reasons for JNJ’s lower top line numbers.
1) There were more of the variants going around, not more of the original strain going around when JNJ was tested and all the vaccines are less effective against the variants. PFE and MRNA were tested when only the original strain was going around. All the vaccines were designed to combat the original strain.
2) JNJ doesn’t protect as well against mild Covid. But the symptoms from this mild Covid are comparable to the side effects from the second dose of PFE/MRNA which affect 30-40% of people and based on anecdata from people
I know nearly everyone.
- bluGill 6y ago1 is false - this article's 91% includes data from before, during, and after the J&J trial. So it covers times when the variants were more active as well.
- quantgenius 6y agoMy original comment referred to the 95% effectiveness in PFE top line numbers from when we got the clinical trial readout rather than the 91% in the article. I was responding to the parent comment. Further, the JNJ clinical trial data was from a population where the Brazilian variant, the most serious of the variants, was likely more widespread than this PFE data which seems to focus more on the relatively less dangerous South African variant.
- mapme 6y agoA mild reaction to the vaccine is way different than actually having a viral infection. Potential long term persistent symptoms can occur with viral diseases and particularly COVID. Not sure that comparison makes sense. Additionally JNJ has side effects as well.