2 ms·

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-idUSL1N2K4

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.