[HN Gopher] Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% ...
___________________________________________________________________
Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in
global trial
Author : heyheyheysome
Score : 90 points
Date : 2021-01-29 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| GizmoSwan wrote:
| 66% effectiveness in one shot is better than 50% - 1/2 shots
| where there is not enough vaccines to go around.
|
| In some places people are not getting both shots of vaccines. FDA
| approved two different shots of 2 shot vaccines.
|
| At this time they should just immunize everybody with one shot at
| least.
| fattire wrote:
| Would a partial or half immunized population not end up
| culturing a more resistant strain?
| syntheticnature wrote:
| This isn't like antibiotics. The 66% is how many people are
| provided some level of immunity, just reducing the infectible
| population _; it doesn 't directly cause issues for the virus
| the way an antibiotic interferes with the functioning of a
| bacterium. It might culture a strain that's better at
| infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective,
| if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it.
|
| _It is not yet known if any of the vaccines completely
| prevent infection; there are concerns the vaccinated might
| still be able to be asymptomatic carriers.
| fattire wrote:
| Yeah I guess I was asking if having only partial-immunity
| effectively acts as a filter or creates pressure so that
| rarer mutated strains make it through and are given a
| pathway to infection/reproduction.
|
| From your response: "It might culture a strain that's
| better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't
| prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the
| virus can use it." it sounds like the answer is yes.
| syntheticnature wrote:
| It might make it through, but in that case it would be
| better adapted for those the vaccine didn't work on; this
| could actually make it less infectious for those the
| vaccine would work on, so it's questionable whether it
| would be any better or worse overall.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Or could it end up culturing a more mild strain? More like a
| common cold?
| eganist wrote:
| Worth pointing out that two of the viruses[0][1]
| responsible for the Common Cold share the same exact Family
| (in fact, the exact Genus[2]) as SARS-CoV-2 [3].
|
| This isn't to say that the progression is certainly in this
| direction (better evidence of that dates back to 2009 [4]),
| but hey, there's hope that that's the direction.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_
| syndr...
|
| [4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-
| payoff/
| cj wrote:
| Have any trials been done to determine the efficacy of just 1
| shot for the double dose vaccines?
| GizmoSwan wrote:
| Yes they have data for results of 1 shot of 2 shot vaccines.
|
| Moderna has 80% in single shot I believe but it degrades over
| time so there is a second shot.
|
| The 66% that does not degrade and can be kept in room
| temperature is not bad at all. Most vaccines are not 90%.
| Most flu vaccine don't cover all different types but they
| still protect people as they get some sort of immunity to
| major types A,B etc.
| yread wrote:
| Not yet, but you can kinda see it from the data. For Pfizer
| it was 60-70 after one dose already, iirc
| bpodgursky wrote:
| That's only if you include all infections within the two
| week window between shots. If you look at the tail end (ie,
| after the shot has time to be effective) it seems more like
| 90.
| zeku wrote:
| The issue with this is that it's the SECOND shot that
| gives you your long term immunity. If you only get one
| shot your immunity is allegedly going to wane somewhat
| quickly.
|
| edit: for pfizer & moderna.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| imo 66% effectiveness is pretty good, not on a personal level,
| but at the population policy level. I'm glad to get another
| vaccine on the market soon.
| foepys wrote:
| On the other hand it's quite sad that we as humanity have
| already developed two vaccines with 95% (or even higher)
| effectiveness but are not able (or rather: are too greedy) to
| share this knowledge to vaccine every human on earth as fast as
| possible.
|
| Instead the US and Europe are putting trade restrictions in
| place to keep the vaccines for themselves. India and China are
| more than capable to produce the vaccines in insane quantities
| but IP law doesn't let them.
| aphextron wrote:
| It's not a tech problem, it's a production problem. There are
| only a few companies on earth that are capable of producing
| the precursor chemicals for these mRNA vaccines, and until
| now they were geared towards producing small batch research
| drugs. They are expanding rapidly but production capacity is
| at 100%.
| mchusma wrote:
| The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is
| striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still
| banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive
| headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has
| passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca?
| Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around?
|
| I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily surpass the "net
| expected benefit" threshold and should all be approved
| immediately. In the US, this would allow us to end this thing
| within 90 days.
| geuis wrote:
| The issue with Astrazeneca is that they messed up part of their
| clinical trials.
|
| The results weren't even negative. A subset of their trial
| group received a different amount of vaccine which seemed to
| show greater efficacy later.
|
| The issue, and thus the "mistrust", is that if they messed up
| that rather critical part of their clinical trials then what
| else could they have messed up?
| [deleted]
| GizmoSwan wrote:
| Germany is approving Astrazeneca with some sort of limitation.
| eli wrote:
| It was just approved by the EU and is already being
| distributed in the UK.
| GizmoSwan wrote:
| Yes but they don't have sufficient data for older adults on
| it so that is the limitation.
| mchusma wrote:
| BTW - I do think it would be more helpful if you report on the
| numbers between vaccines to use your primary metric as "100%
| Effective at Preventing Death", then use 68% or whatever as
| your secondary metric. This better reflects the differences
| between the vaccines so far. All are amazing at protecting
| against what people care about most.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Yeah, I don't get why the Astrazeneca vaccine approval in the
| US is being delayed till (reportedly) March. Is it because
| Pfizer and Moderna are US companies charging a lot more money
| vs. Oxford/Astrazeneca being UK and not making any money on
| their vaccine?
| sterlind wrote:
| I think it's because of the transverse myelitis scare during
| AZ's Phase 3 tests, combined with AZ's dosage quality control
| issues making it really hard to interpret efficacy data.
| newacct583 wrote:
| > In the US, this would allow us to end this thing within 90
| days.
|
| It... would not. We need half a million (edit: billion of
| course, oops) doses to "end this thing", and those just aren't
| going to be there from any combination of manufacturers. If
| that kind of result was really on the table, a new
| administration and congressional leadership would be moving
| mountains to get that win.
|
| But yes: AZ should probably be approved faster than it is and I
| don't know what the delay is.
| fdiskl wrote:
| i think you mean half a billion (or milliard).
| tzs wrote:
| The most direct reason for the delay in approving the AZ
| vaccine in the US is that as of early this month they had not
| submitted for approval.
|
| They are waiting for the results from a larger US-based
| trial.
|
| I'm not sure why they aren't going with the same trial data
| they used to submit requests elsewhere, but it could have
| something to do with the FDA approval process. The FDA
| evaluates drug approval requests the way a lot of people were
| saying the FAA should have evaluated Boeing's 737 Max
| certification application.
|
| The FDA takes your trial data and then does their own
| analysis of safety and efficacy. They also have an
| independent advisory committee that looks over both the
| company's work and the FDA's work. Many other places, such as
| the UK, rely more on trusting the company's analysis.
|
| The AZ vaccine was the one that had the error in running the
| trial that gave some people half of the dose they were
| suppose to get, and the results suggested that results were
| better for them than for those who got the full dose. The
| trial wasn't designed to test half dose vs full dose, and so
| the set of people who ended up getting half vs full are not
| really a good set to draw conclusions from.
|
| Perhaps AZ thinks that submitting based on a later trial
| without that error will overall lead to faster approval than
| submitting an earlier trial that would probably take longer
| for the FDA and the independent advisory committee to
| analyze?
| Exmoor wrote:
| I agree that the AZ vaccine was safe and should have been given
| US approval. That said, this data is for a single dose compared
| to AZ's two doses so it is a bit apples-to-oranges.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| 66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100%
| protection against death and hospitalization.
|
| I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in good
| conscience while peoples are dying by the thousands on a daily
| basis.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| Sorry, but I take issue with that statement: 100% protection
| against death and hospitalization for a tiny minority that are
| susceptible.
|
| Your statement makes it sound like everyone that gets it will
| die when that is absolutely not true.
|
| In fact, the statistics show the exact opposite: here in the
| UK, for example, only around 400 people under the age of 70 (I
| think!) that have no underlying symptoms, have actually died
| from COVID.
|
| Edit: Oh here we go again... drive-by downvotes. Care to state
| your reasons?
| thebruce87m wrote:
| Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 _extra_ people died in the
| UK since COVID started. Antibody testing suggests that this
| was a result of ~10% of people being infected. I'll let you
| do the maths for deaths due to herd immunity, and whether
| that is a "tiny minority".
|
| People at risk include people with diabetes and asthma.
|
| In Scotland, the most hospital beds have been occupied by the
| 45 - 64 age group. Not sure about other parts of the UK.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| > Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 extra people died in
| the UK since COVID started.
|
| It still doesn't negate the argument that it only affects
| the vulnerable.
|
| And those in the hospital beds: what were their conditions
| while in there? What were their underlying health issues
| (if any)? Did they recover?
|
| I'm not saying people don't get sick, I'm saying the cure
| is worse than the disease especially when the ones dying
| are a tiny fraction of the population.
|
| Edit: I live in Scotland - we have had the "sick man of
| Europe" title for a long time and we have an obesity crisis
| here [0]
|
| [0] - https://www.obesityactionscotland.org/media/1026/obes
| ityfact...
| thebruce87m wrote:
| In a "do nothing" scenario we would probably expect
| hundreds of thousands more vulnerable people dying before
| their time in the UK, along with who-knows how many 45-64
| year olds (and other age groups) due to overwhelmed
| hospitals. We've seen that overwhelmed hospitals can't do
| normal things like cancer treatment either, so tally that
| up too.
|
| This is worth some inconvenience and higher taxes to me.
| I guess some people have no vulnerable relatives and no
| co-morbidities, or maybe value things like going to the
| pub above their gran. Personally I would rather have my
| 80 year old dad and 76 year old mum around for another
| few years than spend a week in Tenerife this year.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| I didn't advocate for "do nothing". Not at all.
|
| I live in the UK and we have the NHS so their job is to
| look after people when they get sick (and, to a certain
| extent, use preventative measure like education where
| appropriate).
|
| But the UK governments largest spend is the NHS. We pay a
| fortune every year for it. So if they can't do their job
| then heads should roll among politicians and NHS brass.
|
| My argument is that the death rate does not justify the
| measures that are being taken: by all means protect the
| vulnerable (my parents are in that class) but the rest of
| us have been locked down when the stats absolutely do not
| justify it.
|
| I haven't even mentioned the economic cataclysm we are
| facing... that's another story!
| lostlogin wrote:
| It isn't possible to protect the vulnerable while having
| rampant covid in the young and healthy, society doesn't
| work like that.
|
| Here in New Zealand we isolate new arrivals in hotels and
| they are strictly monitored. There are only a few
| thousand people there at any given time, and despite the
| huge effort, covid still escapes into the community every
| so often.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| > It isn't possible to protect the vulnerable while
| having rampant covid in the young and healthy, society
| doesn't work like that.
|
| Then why do the numbers keep going up despite locking
| down everyone? Why didn't governments institute a policy
| that keeps people away from those in vulnerable groups
| with a PS1000 fine for breaches? Mandated masks etc. That
| would have been just as manageable. Lockdowns do not
| work, the figures clearly show that yet people still
| mandate for more lockdowns? I don't get it.
|
| > and despite the huge effort, covid still escapes into
| the community every so often.
|
| yes, but who is dying from it? It's the old and
| vulnerable, not the young and non-vulnerable: the vast
| majority of people will not die from this!
|
| The cure is worse than the disease.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Lockdowns do not work, the figures clearly show that
| yet people still mandate for more lockdowns?
|
| What figures show that lockdown doesn't work? I'm in New
| Zealand. We had community covid multiple times and have
| eradicated it (with lockdowns initially).
|
| Keep in mind that our initial lockdown was very strict,
| particularly compared to UK style lockdowns.
|
| In the UK the cases are falling fast, why do you say
| otherwise? There are less new cases each day.
|
| No one is dying from covid here and hasn't for a long
| time, touch wood, hopefully that continues.
|
| https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I would take a vaccine just to catch one less common cold a
| year. I'll gladly take the COVID-19 vaccine just to prevent
| common cold symptoms.
|
| And if it would actually end the pandemic and let me go into
| a store without a %$@#&#@ mask, I'd gladly swallow the
| syringe whole, sideways.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| 1. I've never met anyone in the last year who thought Covid
| had a 100% death rate. Do you know anyone who believes this?
|
| > In fact, the statistics show the exact opposite: here in
| the UK, for example, only around 400 people under the age of
| 70 (I think!) that have no underlying symptoms, have actually
| died from COVID.
|
| Over 10,000 people under age 70 have died from covid, why
| does it matter if they have underlying symptoms?
| _Understated_ wrote:
| I meant "underlying conditions", not underlying symptoms...
| that's my fault.
|
| So, basically, if you are healthy, your chances are
| absolutely tiny that you will die if you catch it.
|
| So, yeah, it matters a whole lot actually.
| xxpor wrote:
| Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are
| concidered underlying conditions, people with "no
| underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total
| population.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| We're talking about serious stuff: cancer, immune
| disorders, diabetes, obesity etc.
| orwin wrote:
| High blood pressure is a serious underlying condition
| (and counted as an underlying condition in Covid death).
| Obesity is counted as an underlying condition at stage 1
| (between 30 and 35 BMI).
| armadsen wrote:
| Exactly. Obesity alone means ~40% of the population of
| the US, and ~30% of the UK have an underlying condition
| as far as COVID risk goes.
| akuchling wrote:
| But most people are unhealthy, with one condition or
| another. It's misleading to throw out most of the
| population and then say "but look how small the numbers
| are for the sliver that's left!"
| _Understated_ wrote:
| That's not an argument...
|
| Healthy is subjective but when you say it like that then,
| yes, everyone has something.
|
| However, there are a bunch of things that will greatly
| increase your chances of dying from COVID: diabetes,
| obesity, cancer, immune-related illnesses so this is what
| I am referring to. It's fair to say that people with one
| or more of those (not an exhaustive list) are
| "unhealthy".
|
| So, it's not misleading: it's people who are vulnerable
| either due to age or health reasons that are at risk of
| dying, no one else.
|
| It was even raised by an MP recently and he asked Boris
| Johnston why we're getting locked down when only 400 or
| so people with no underlying conditions have died...
| everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor
| health that made them susceptible so they should have
| been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with
| things.
| [deleted]
| majormajor wrote:
| > everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor
| health that made them susceptible so they should have
| been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with
| things.
|
| This seems wildly expensive and impractical. Who's going
| to take care of all those people? Where are you going to
| house them (many of them live with people without those
| conditions)? Do you know how many people have diabetes,
| just to grab the first item off your list?
| Vinceo wrote:
| Do you think it's more expensive than the way we do it
| now?
| Grimm1 wrote:
| "Chest X-rays of asymptomatic patients - those infected but
| without symptoms - exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of
| the time, but those with COVID-19 symptoms had one every
| time, she also added."
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/26/fac.
| ..
|
| There are things that can make living quite uncomfortable. So
| while yes not everyone will be hospitalized and die, there is
| still a lot of reasons to get any decently effective vaccine.
|
| Edit:
|
| "Bankhead-Kendall, who has treated thousands of patients
| since the pandemic began last March, says patients who had
| COVID-19 symptoms show a severe chest X-ray every time, and
| those who were asymptomatic show a severe chest X-ray 80
| percent of the time."
| _Understated_ wrote:
| > exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time
|
| With a sample size of what? That's a nonsense statement
| that can't be scrutinised.
|
| Edit, found this: The finding is promising but will require
| further research given the small size of the study with
| only 82 patients, mostly male and average age over 50
|
| 82 people over the age of 50. It also doesn't mention how
| healthy these people were.
|
| This is typical of pretty much all media coverage: very
| little facts but also very little to throw back at them...
| jfengel wrote:
| The "70-80%" figure is based on thousands of the doctor's
| own patients.
|
| https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-
| impacts-...
|
| It's not a peer reviewed study, and it includes only the
| people whose situations were severe enough to be sent to
| a radiologist. But it's enough to conclude that it's more
| than just a dismissably small number of cases.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| Sorry, it says nothing of the sort. All the evidence,
| including government statistics, tell is it is precisely
| that, a dismissably small number outside known vulnerable
| groups.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| You realize over 70m people in the US are obese right and
| another 100m are overweight? Known vulnerable groups
| include 170m people right there. I can't take your
| argument seriously.
| [deleted]
| Grimm1 wrote:
| What I don't understand with people who reply like this
| is why bother taking the chance? My thought is that
| people have never experienced a severe respiratory
| illness before, while I have and because of that I'm
| appropriately level set on how bad the consequences can
| be for an individual.
|
| Nothing like back to back cases of bad pneumonia 19 years
| ago to make me take this whole thing seriously.
|
| My understanding is the hospitalization rate even for
| young and healthy (20-44) is around 10%. 1 in 10 odds for
| something happening is really a quite good chance of that
| thing happening.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were
| I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution
| too.
|
| Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in
| hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a
| bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the
| scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been
| close to deaths door. No way to tell.
|
| The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable groups that
| can be severely symptomatic and even die from this but
| they make up a tiny tiny fraction of the population.
| lostlogin wrote:
| The figures don't lie. Of one hundred people with covid,
| two will die and ten will be suffering three months
| later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too,
| and it's poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for
| example and there are plenty of accounts about.
|
| What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to
| where covid ran free, it isn't pretty.
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS221
| 3-2...
| _Understated_ wrote:
| Balance, that's what I'm pushing for.
|
| Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from
| covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed
| experimental gene therapy still in initial trials.
|
| Edit: Remember that none of the media and government
| published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely
| important.
| henrikschroder wrote:
| I saw this study from USC: https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/
|
| You can't link to the exact thing, but choose
| "Coronavirus Risk Perceptions" and split by age.
|
| People under 40 believe that their risk of dying from the
| virus is over 10% on average. The actual risk for that
| age group is somewhere around 0.02%, which means they're
| overestimating their risk of dying by a factor of 500.
|
| Five hundred! It's _mindboggling_ how wrong people are.
|
| But once you see those numbers, it becomes clear why
| there is such widespread support for strict lockdowns.
|
| However, even with the accurate numbers, I would still
| say the case for the mRNA vaccines is strong. I think you
| are exaggerating the risks of the mRNA vaccines, in the
| same way that regular people are exaggerating the risks
| of the virus.
| birken wrote:
| I'm quite confident people probably over-estimate their
| chance of dying in a plane crash by a few orders of
| magnitude as well. People are careful about their own
| lives, which is probably a good survival mechanism.
|
| What _specific_ policy are you suggesting? The more <40
| year olds that get the virus, the more virus there is.
| The more virus there is, the more people who are
| spreading the virus, the more people who can get the
| virus, including people at very high risk of dying or
| being disabled from it. Ignoring all the effects of
| filling up hospitals with COVID patients at the expense
| of all other medical conditions.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Elsewhere in this thread you argue that because only 400
| people without underlying conditions have died,
| restrictions should be removed. The other 100k don't seem
| to be of concern. I don't think 'balanced reporting' is
| the full extent of what you are after.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| I'm talking about balancing the risk! Yes that 400 figure
| is foundational to my argument and yes, we should lift
| the restrictions.
|
| But if you are really sick, you'd be at home, in your bed
| taking it easy anyway especially if your symptoms are as
| severe as some of the COVID reports suggest.
|
| And it's not balanced reporting I want either, it's
| accurate reporting with facts that can be challenged or
| verified: most articles are incredibly vague when it
| comes to COVID and some have incredibly low numbers that,
| at first glance, look damning but are still tiny numbers.
|
| Edit: deleted the 100,000 sentece - In response to that
| number, yes it may be a large number but there is no
| breakdown of the cases. For all you know, they were all
| 90+ years old with previous underlying conditions. All
| the figures we see have very little behind them that can
| substantiate the measures taken, while at the same time
| trigger responses in all of us that make them hard to
| argue against without coming across as callous but the
| numbers are not there to justify the lockdowns.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| People are more bothered about the emotional virtue of a
| statement than they are about it's truthfulness when it comes
| to the pandemic.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Long covid is a problem that is going to keep on giving. A
| large portion of those who get covid will have symptoms 6
| months later, and many cases are life altering.
| square_square wrote:
| The Novavax vaccine is way better than this one
| eloff wrote:
| I agree, but the old cliche "beggars can't be choosers" comes
| to mind.
|
| I'll take the first vaccine that becomes available to me, and
| I highly doubt they'd give me a choice at the clinic anyway.
| alexhutcheson wrote:
| We're limited by supply, so the existence of (limited
| quantities of) better vaccines isn't a good reason to block
| people from choosing to get a safe vaccine that still
| provides a reasonable degree of protection.
|
| There are plenty of people in the lower-risk categories who
| would prefer to get a >60% effective vaccine now, rather than
| wait months for their turn in line for vaccines with the
| highest efficacy.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| Why do you believe that the FDA is holding them back?
|
| So far the process appears to be approval after the minimum of
| safety and effectiveness testing. This means that people won't
| waste time or be harmed by a failed vaccine candidate. I don't
| work in medicine and am just a bystander like most. Is there
| something I am missing?
| alexhutcheson wrote:
| The AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved for use in the UK
| since December, but the FDA isn't currently scheduled to
| approve it in the US until April.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| Because they care 6 orders of magnitude more about people who
| die from taking the vaccine than people who die from them
| witholding the vaccine.
| wtvanhest wrote:
| Personally, I'd rather take the J&J which uses old, proven
| tech. In 5 years we will know a lot more about nRNA vaccine
| long-term safety, and I'll be much more comfortable taking an
| nRNA vaccine at that point.
|
| When I'm eligible, I still may take the nRNA, but my preference
| is on older tech at this point.
|
| I fully acknowledge that the nRNA is extremely likely to be
| safe, but it's just my preference
| dirtyid wrote:
| Yeah, I'd personally hedge for 50-70% shots based off tested
| techniques that inoculates against severe cases. I'll also
| bias towards options with less onerous cold chain
| requirements. No part of covid response has been trouble free
| so far, vaccines rollout will be no different. Have had
| several front line / medical friends advice to bias away from
| Pfizer due to behind the scene incompetence. Currently Pfizer
| is limited to hospital settings in my country due to excess
| requirements, and guess what, hospital staff has been running
| ragged for over a year.
| singingfish wrote:
| I don't see any a-priori issues with mRNA safety - mRNA is by
| design an ephemeral product with no chance of self-
| replication. Its long term efficacy on the other hand is yet
| unknown and the supply chain issues are significant (it's a
| result of mRNA being an ephemeral cellular product being
| stored artificially).
|
| Of course if you made an mRNA virus to produce some sort of
| toxic cellular protein then safety would be an issue - which
| is what the phase 1 and 2 trials are about. Phase 4 is about
| finding the one in a million adverse reactions.
| gojomo wrote:
| Some think the Adenovirus-vetor vaccines have more risk of
| certain side-effects, especially if (by chance or a prior
| vaccination) the person was previously infected by a related
| Adenovirus.
|
| By contrast, the mRNA vaccines do the same thing in the end -
| get your cells to appear infected & emit the target spike
| proteins - in the narrowest possible way, via a subset of the
| changes an Adenovirus infection causes.
| angry_octet wrote:
| As I understand it, the risk is not to do with the
| adenovirus but with the use of PEG (polyethylene glycol) or
| similar analogues, to make the active ingredient last
| longer, which may cause an allergic reaction[1] to
| sensitized people. The AZ vaccine does not use PEG (nor
| J&J, Novovax IIRC).
|
| The complication with the adenovirus carrier is that you
| immune system may attack the carrier so effectively that
| you don't get enough exposure to the coronavirus protein
| that it is carrying, and hence don't develop a strong
| enough immune response to it. This causes problems
| determining how people will respond to varied treatment
| schedules (delay of the booster shot, mixing of vaccines,
| etc).[2][3]
|
| The mRNA vaccines do not get your cells to 'appear
| infected'. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcTEmHlvY10
|
| [1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-
| grow-nano... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti
| cle/pii/S152500160... [3] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipe
| line/archives/2020/12/02/ta...
| bawolff wrote:
| Adenovirus vaccines are also a newish tech (not that anything
| wrong with that, that's why we have safety testing). Its not
| as bleeding edge as mRNA but its definitely not a traditional
| vaccine
| zeku wrote:
| Don't tell him that. He's willing to get any vaccine at all
| and the world desperately needs to be vaxxed. If people
| want to take adenovirus vaxs because they feel its safer I
| say just let them.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Informed consent is very important in medicine for good
| reasons.
| manwe150 wrote:
| I think what continues to surprise me (after talking
| about these for months now) is his underlying assumption
| that the third choice is a likely option. While the
| continued rate of spread seems to suggest to me that
| really we have a near binary option:
|
| 1. get injected with some vaccine soon, expose your body
| to a controlled amount of slightly noxious chemicals and
| hope your body learns how to eliminate them before they
| degrade on their own
|
| 2. contract COVID-19 soon, expose your body to those same
| noxious chemicals, plus a bunch of others that help it
| spread throughout your body and cause damage and linger,
| possibly for weeks or sometimes until you die
|
| (excluding extreme options, like living alone for the
| next 5 years far from other humans, or dying of a mundane
| cause sooner)
| geuis wrote:
| mRNA, not n. It's short for messenger RNA.
| 5440 wrote:
| I can give you a laundry list right now. For example, millions
| of vials are cracking around the rim, several of the filling
| rooms have mold issues, one of the vial hoppers is leaving
| metal particulates in the vials, weekly OOS for manufacturing
| impurities..I think the public would freak out if they knew
| what was happening in the supply chain.
| singingfish wrote:
| I think this is just a normal part of the scale up process,
| and why things are time consuming.
|
| The AZ vaccine seems to be the best candidate as it can be
| distributed at fridge temperature. It looks like the novavax
| vaccine (protein + adjuvant design) may actually prevent
| invection. The goal of the 1st generation of vaccines is to
| prevent severe illness.
| gojomo wrote:
| For which vaxes? How do you know this?
| arrayjumper wrote:
| citation needed
| jdhn wrote:
| If this is in any way true, you need to contact a journalist
| ASAP. Alex Berenson would love to hear from you.
|
| If this isn't true, then you should delete this immediately.
| zug_zug wrote:
| >> If this is in any way true, you need to contact a
| journalist ASAP.
|
| ??? It sounds like he's saying the supply chain is working
| out normal issues, and the FDA is rightly holding it back
| until they are resolved. I don't see anything newsworthy
| about that. Certainly could be misquoted/smudged for some
| great clickbait though.
| jdhn wrote:
| The way I'm interpreting the statement is that these
| issues are happening today during the production of Covid
| vaccines that have already been approved and are being
| sent out.
| angry_octet wrote:
| Yes, what we need is anecdata that early random failures
| mean the world is ending, quick find a conspiracy pot
| boiler like Berenson.
| c0nsumer wrote:
| Would you please provide citations for this?
|
| These are pretty extraordinary claims.
| beezle wrote:
| Not hospitalized does not mean no damage, short or long term.
| That is not to say this vaccine is a bust, but I for one was
| disappointed in the efficacy. The Novavax vaccine appears to be
| better and is also able to use existing supply chain
| technology.
| gogopuppygogo wrote:
| Unpopular opinion: the FDA has to justify their existence. If
| vaccines can be developed safely and deployed quickly,
| inexpensively, and in large quantities all without FDA then
| people would realize how bloated our government really is.
| tootie wrote:
| Safe, effective vaccines are being developed because they
| know if they don't they won't get past the FDA.
| Traster wrote:
| We saw this with Boeing - as the private company realised
| that the regulatory body wasn't going to hold it accountable,
| the private company started trading off profit versus safety
| with the result being lower short term costs and more
| dangerous planes.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| >If vaccines can be developed safely ... without FDA
|
| You forgot a critical distinction: safely _every time_
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Doesn't need to be every time, it "just" needs to meet or
| beat the current FDA record. The FDA has approved
| treatments in the past that turned out to be harmful for
| substantial numbers of people. _If_ the industry could
| reliably replicate the FDA 's present track record (which
| is, overall, very good) then the FDA could be shown to be
| unnecessary.
|
| However, having worked in regulated industries I do _not_
| trust industry to do any better than the FDA. At least not
| in the long term.
| pfarnsworth wrote:
| This is unfortunately an ignorant statement.
|
| During the Swine Flu epidemic, British health care workers
| were given an untested vaccine. It left many of them with
| lingering health problems like narcolepsy. This is what
| happens when things are unsafely and quickly distributed.
| raverbashing wrote:
| The 737 Max would like a word
| joncrane wrote:
| I think this is a bit of a disingenuous approach. There's a
| slippery slope here.
|
| Just because "humanity, including giant healthcare
| conglomerates who stood to profit came together to fast track
| vaccines against a deadly global pandemic" it doesn't mean
| "regulation of the vaccine and drug industry is pointless."
|
| If the FDA were to relax its standards across the board due
| to this one success in the face of an anomaly, you'd better
| believe drug manufacturers would be fast tracking dangerous
| drugs.
|
| Heck even in the current regulatory environment dangerous
| products make it through. As evidenced by all the ads I see
| for litigation based on harm caused by various already-
| approved (in a non-fast track manner) drugs that have made it
| to the market in the last decade.
| malux85 wrote:
| There's always going to be work for the FDA, there's an
| unending stream of new diseases/conditions and cures. I very
| much doubt they are worried about running out of work
| FuckButtons wrote:
| The reason this is unpopular is because of how obviously
| incorrect it is. The history of medicine is almost an
| allegory for why evolved evidence based systems like this to
| regulate what companies and doctors can do. Time and again,
| doctors and pharmaceutical companies have done unsafe,
| harmful and fraudulent things to patients who trusted them.
| The only reason we have medicine that works now is because we
| rigorously enforce the use of statistical proof that
| interventions work through bodies like the FDA.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yup. There's a lot of distrust in doctors and the medical
| community and some of that has been earned by past lapses
| in ethics or rigor.
|
| The only way to earn it back is by heightened scrutiny.
| That's the role the FDA finds itself in. It doesn't just
| approve things because approving something that later
| causes issues will ultimately result lost confidence.
|
| Getting people to take these vaccines will be a challenge
| in and of itself. Can you imagine how much harder it will
| be if we give antivaxxers more "they rushed this"
| ammunition?
| JamesBarney wrote:
| The problem is deaths caused by a lack of regulation are
| highly visible. But all of the deaths caused by burdensome
| regulation are harder to point to.
|
| If we had started releasing the vaccine in August of last
| year we probably could have saved 100,000 lives.
|
| Also the FDA doesn't regulate medicine. Only drugs. All the
| rest of medicine doesn't fall under FDA regulation (like
| surgeries).
| FuckButtons wrote:
| We could also have achieved nothing at all for our money,
| or have given thousands of healthy people permanent
| autoimmune conditions or killed them through adverse
| reactions and after all that we still wouldn't have known
| if what we were doing actually did anything to slow the
| pandemic. People on hacker news should know just how hard
| it is to really know something, the human immune system
| is far more complex than any code base, the only way to
| know if something works is to test it, and test it
| thoroughly, which is exactly what the "burdensome"
| regulation requires.
| angry_octet wrote:
| This 'don't test it, just do it' idea really shows how
| paniced and irrational people are. The reasons to not
| rush out a population wide vax campaign are significant.
|
| For example: the otherwise promising and effective
| candidate from QUT accidentally causes you to test
| positive for HIV on the common/cheap/simple assays, which
| would make effective HIV testing vastly more expensive in
| the population and cause a huge anti-vax movement. I
| think we are happy that this side effect is constrained
| the the small trials group.
|
| Maybe this needs to be explained in computer terms: would
| you be upset if Apple rushed out a security patch and
| that caused every iphone to reboot randomly during odd
| numbered months, and was unpatchable?
| abfan1127 wrote:
| I spent time at a large medical device company. I'm lightly
| familiar with the FDA submission process. I would not refer
| to it as rigorous. We were encouraged to keep the
| information light or the FDA would be easily confused and
| reject. Rejection had more to do with giving the FDA simple
| warm fuzzies rather than rigorous data analysis. The FDA
| process is more an exercise in paperwork, not in rigorous
| drug/device performance.
|
| As you say, doctors and pharma have done unsafe, harmful,
| and fraudulent things to patients. How much was the FDA
| complacent in this?
|
| All of these drugs were approved by the FDA's "process".
|
| https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-
| availability/drug-...
| sterlind wrote:
| Drugs are much more rigorously evaluated than medical
| devices. It's just a quirk of the FDA that medical
| devices aren't nearly as well regulated or tested.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I suggest you read up on the history of medicine prior to
| creation of the FDA, and similar agencies world wide.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| I'm sufficiently versed on the days of snake oil. I'm
| also familiar with the modern follies of the FDA,
| including artificial spinal disk treatments, "standard of
| care" balks, etc.
| jpeloquin wrote:
| > I'm lightly familiar with the FDA submission process. I
| would not refer to it as rigorous.
|
| Is this referring to all of the submission pathways, or
| one in particular? That is, I wouldn't expect the 510(k)
| process to be particularly rigorous, but the PMA process
| should ratchet up the scrutiny.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| Its been 10 years since that employment so I don't recall
| the details. We would get annual "FDA training" on how to
| report, document, etc. my particular employer always
| stressed on being accurate and doing what was right for
| the patient. But "over-reporting" was discouraged... I
| always related it to a police investigation. Don't give
| them any more information than asked, you never know what
| rabbit hole they will go down, risking rejection.
| mmmrtl wrote:
| Do you realize the irony in providing a list of FDA
| recalls while bemoaning their lack of rigor? Lots of
| these "drugs" were unapproved dietary supplements that
| the FDA found to actually contain drugs, or drugs that
| failed QC while on the market, not the pristine batches
| and data that would have gotten the drug approved in the
| first place.
|
| To me, it's similar to having more trust for media
| outlets that post corrections rather than pretending that
| nothing ever goes wrong. It's a point in their favor that
| a stamp of approval can be rescinded.
|
| You might have an argument that the companies need to be
| taken out of the drug approval process entirely, due to
| issues of hiding data to avoid giving the FDA a hint of
| anything wrong (or making them "confused" as you say), or
| maybe we need much stricter rules on data withholding.
| I'm with you there.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| The irony is specifically why I posted it. FDA approval
| is treated as a "gold standard" yet we have lots of
| evidence that it isn't. Companies lie, make non-
| intentional mistakes not caught by the FDA, there's all
| sorts of issues with it. The FDA review process is more
| like an editor checking spelling than actual rigorous
| analysis.
|
| I don't think your media analogy is accurate. It would be
| like the government censoring media companies, but having
| a poor biased criteria which then changes later, but is
| also subject to lies, etc. I don't think its a good
| analogy.
|
| I think drug companies should be rated on their data
| openness, with enough information to reproduce results. I
| think approval processes should be replaced with levels
| of confidence certifications. For example:
|
| Gold is independent labs find similar results to internal
| labs (verified) Silver is only internal labs produced
| results, not reproduced elsewhere etc.
| klodolph wrote:
| The FDA more than justified its existence when it prevented
| the entry of thalidomide into the US market without more
| evidence of its safety.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
| JamesBarney wrote:
| How many people have died from drugs getting approved later
| or not being able to afford drugs due to the high price of
| drug testing?
|
| Or from drugs not being researched or approved because it's
| too expensive to do an fda trial?
| throwaway998866 wrote:
| > I have no idea how the FDA can hold back these vaccines in
| good conscience...
|
| The UK versus FDA Thalidomide experience is at least one good
| reason.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Bloomberg quoted "No severe allergic reactions," to the J&J, yet
| my cousin-in-law is in the hospital right now with Guillain-Barre
| syndrome following the J&J clinical trial shot. Granted this is
| rare and can happen with any vaccine (I believe?), but it's
| pretty strange to read about the lack of negative reactions when
| I personally know someone who has been affected.
|
| NB: I'm not advocating there is anything largely wrong or unsafe
| about it.
| graeme wrote:
| Guillan barre syndrome is not considered an allergic reaction
| to the best of my knowledge. So your brother's case doesn't
| contradict the claim.
|
| And yeah GBS can happen with any vaccine but more importantly
| also from viral infections. Generally more frequently from the
| viruses themselves.
| Exmoor wrote:
| I suspect the title was abbreviated to fit HN length
| requirements, but it cut out perhaps the most important part.
| This data is for a single shot. There is an ongoing trial for
| boosting with a second shot down the line, but having a single
| shot that's known to be effective at eliminating the disease and
| extremely effective at reducing severe cases and hospitalizations
| is a game changer. We can vaccinate lower risk populations with
| this vaccine and do it twice as fast. Once everyone is
| vaccinated, we can invite people to come back for a second shot
| as a booster. From the phase 1/2 trial data I saw, I'd expect a
| second shot to boost the efficacy to numbers approaching the mRNA
| vaccines.
|
| Edit: It also only needs to be refrigerated so it eliminates a
| lot of coordination related to frozen transportation, scheduled
| appointments, etc. will be eliminated.
| znebby wrote:
| I'm really struggling to understand these numbers.
|
| In some other articles I'm seeing that it offers 100% protection
| against hospitalisation and death.
|
| "The J&J vaccine was 85 per cent effective at preventing severe
| Covid-19. Twenty-eight days after the jab, it offered "complete
| protection" from hospitalisation and death." [1]
|
| Wouldn't having "severe" infection require hospitilisation?
|
| [1]
| https://www.ft.com/content/d05c7c57-da11-42a1-aa33-b66052c90...
| jiofih wrote:
| Severe means severe symptoms but doesn't imply hospitalization.
| GizmoSwan wrote:
| People would get the disease but it won't kill them. They get a
| milder version of the disease that they otherwise would have.
|
| It is like having some sort of immunity to type A,B, Spanish,
| etc of flu and getting them still but not dying like in early
| 1900s.
| outlace wrote:
| Presumably severe includes some people who don't need
| hospitalization. Some high risk patients can get new monoclonal
| antibody treatments that may prevent them from needing
| hospitalization. Some people are sent home from the ED with
| oximeters and told to come back if their oxygen saturation
| drops below a certain threshold and a doctor calls them
| everyday. Hospitals in hard-hit area have to be very judicious
| about only admitting patients who really need it so there may
| be some severe/high risk cases that are just closely followed
| as an outpatient.
| zeku wrote:
| My grandma got severe covid and was sent home with oxygen
| tanks and other stuff. She's made it through thankfully.
|
| Rural USA area hit hard.
| roywiggins wrote:
| I've seen "severe" be measured by oxygen saturation; some
| people are able to manage severe COVID at home.
|
| Some people _have_ to, because there simply isn 't any hospital
| in their area with space for them.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > Some people have to, because there simply isn't any
| hospital in their area with space for them.
|
| Citation needed on that one. There is a lot of media
| fearmongering out there that results in outliers and things
| that are normal practice getting taken out of context and
| blown up into something scary.
| roywiggins wrote:
| You can see it in statistics. When the hospitalization
| starts dropping while case counts are going up, it's
| because more cases are being managed at home.
|
| Prioritizing critical care is _normal_ when care is in
| short supply, but it means that you are more likely to have
| to deal with COVID at home when the local healthcare system
| is overstressed.
|
| > on Nov. 1, the Covid Tracking Project's seven-day average
| showed about 80,000 new cases -- which we would predict
| should lead to about 2,800 new hospitalizations a week
| later, by Nov. 8. Instead, there were 2,600, a little fewer
| than expected. On Nov. 15, we had 146,000 new cases, which
| should have resulted in about 5,100 new hospitalizations by
| Nov. 22. However, there were fewer than 3,700. This pattern
| of declining rates of hospitalization continued through the
| end of November.
|
| > What is happening is pretty simple: Because hospitals are
| filling up, they are admitting fewer and fewer people. Any
| doctor or nurse will tell you that as the demand for beds
| soars, the threshold for admission rises with it...
|
| > The decision on whether to admit a patient depends on two
| things: clinical judgment and bed availability. Critically
| ill patients will always be admitted. But as hospitals
| start to fill up, those who are less sick -- younger covid
| patients, or those whose oxygen levels aren't yet
| dangerously low -- get sent home. These patients would be
| safer in a hospital bed, but there isn't one available for
| them anymore.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/12/07/covid-
| hosp...
| ideamotor wrote:
| I think they are saying none of the hospitalized cases occurred
| after twenty-eight days, but statistically they can't really
| say it provides 100% hospitalization prevention at that point
| even if that is accurate. At lease one expert on CNN indicated
| protection was continuing to increase throughout the study
| which is promising. I'd like to see a follow-up.
| nickpinkston wrote:
| Is it possible to get J&J first and then get the Moderna, etc.
| later on for more protection?
| boulos wrote:
| I find the Johnson and Johnson Press Release [1] more
| informative. It gives a lot more detail on the study, including
| linking to their protocol [2].
|
| It's unfortunate, but the different vaccine trials all have
| different demographics and different measures of efficacy. IIRC,
| the Moderna "95%" is not "only 5% developed COVID" but rather
| "95% didn't end up showing any symptoms" while AstraZeneca was
| doing weekly testing (again this is from memory). With so many
| people being asymptomatic, the difference between "95%" and "66%"
| is in the details (which is definitely why Johnson and Johnson
| also highlight their 72% in the US, and 85% against
| hospitalization/death).
|
| tl;dr: each vaccine group made reasonable, independent choices
| for their effectiveness metrics, but they're not the same metric.
|
| [1] https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-announces-single-shot-
| ja...
|
| [2] https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/covid-19-phase-3-study-
| clini...
| m-ee wrote:
| They do not have different measures of eficacy. AZ did more
| testing to look at symptomatic infections but that was not used
| in the primary efficacy calculation.
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Also the results of this vaccine isn't that difference from
| just using 1 shot of another vaccine.
|
| It looks like as long as it's safe to do it, the 2nd shot is
| worth it.
| lurkmurk wrote:
| Is there some resource that compares all the vaccines, an article
| or a blog post? I would guess that a vast majority of people
| don't have time/knowledge to look into official reports. One big
| table with different companies, number of people in trials,
| results etc. would be nice. For example, what I just found out is
| that Moderna is actually not 95% effective on all age groups but
| on 18-65 [1].
|
| Back to J&J. How old were the 15% that did develop the most
| serious symptoms? The article says that "more than 40 per cent
| had other illnesses [...] including obesity, diabetes and HIV."
| Isn't the base rate for obesity in a population something like
| that or higher? Finally, if we just look at the numbers (if they
| are even comparable), can we objectively rank these vaccines by
| how good they are? No ones feelings should be hurt if we can
| conclude that their vaccine is close to useless (think of how
| vaccinated population will demand loose measures although 40% of
| them are still at risk).
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210114-covid-19-how-
| eff...
| sradman wrote:
| The NIH news release _Janssen Investigational COVID-19 Vaccine:
| Interim Analysis of Phase 3 Clinical Data Released_ [1]:
|
| > An investigational COVID-19 vaccine developed by Janssen
| Pharmaceuticals appears to be safe and effective at preventing
| moderate and severe COVID-19 in adults, according to an interim
| analysis of Phase 3 clinical data conducted Jan. 21. The vaccine,
| called Ad.26.COV2.S or JNJ-78436725, requires only a single
| injection and can be stored in a refrigerator for months.
|
| > The interim analysis assessed 468 cases of symptomatic COVID-19
| among 44,325 adult volunteers in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
| Colombia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, and the United States. The
| investigational vaccine was reportedly 66% effective at
| preventing the study's combined endpoints of moderate and severe
| COVID-19 at 28 days post-vaccination among all volunteers,
| including those infected with an emerging viral variant.
|
| [1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/janssen-
| invest...
| tpmx wrote:
| The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're what
| you want, if you're in a position to pick.
|
| The traditional vaccines, like this one and the Astra Zeneca one
| appear to be efficient at preventing hospitalization/death.
| That's great - it will ease the extreme load on the hospitals,
| and also reduce deaths greatly.
|
| What I'm concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases
| that's been reported (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
| conditions/coronavirus/i...), hitting a substantial part of the
| infected.
|
| We need more clarity to which degree the non-mRNA-vaccines
| prevent these pretty horrobile chronic diseases.
| agd wrote:
| The MRNA vaccines were tested prior to the existence of the
| variants. The Jansen vaccine efficacy was likely affected by
| the existence of these variants, so I'm not sure we can assume
| the MRNA vaccines are better.
| boulos wrote:
| > The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they're
| what you want, if you're in a position to pick.
|
| That might end up being true, but see my comment about the
| different "efficacy" measures and demographic differences [1].
| We don't have as clear cut a statement as that, and instead
| need to proceed (for now) with "all of the approved ones seem
| to prevent death or serious illness. Take what you can".
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25959872
| tpmx wrote:
| I would take a Johnson&Johnson or Astra Zeneca vaccine
| tomorrow if I were offered, don't misunderstand me.
| m12k wrote:
| I originally thought the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was
| significantly behind the mRNA vaccines in efficacy. But then I
| learned that the Oxford trials PCR-tested every participant
| regularly, while the Pfizer and Moderna trials only tested
| participants that were showing symptoms. So there's a very real
| chance that behind that ~95% number the mRNA vaccines also had
| asymptomatic cases that were never discovered during trials,
| and the actual protection is nearly the same as the Oxford one.
| The mRNA vaccines still seem like a great leap forward, and
| they don't come with the potential complications of resistance
| to the vector virus that adenovirus-based vaccines do - but I'm
| less sure now that they actually offer better protection
| overall.
| [deleted]
| tpmx wrote:
| > But then I learned that the Oxford trials PCR-tested every
| participant regularly, while the Pfizer and Moderna trials
| only tested participants that were showing symptoms.
|
| That seems substantial, weird and important. Source?
|
| Edit: This is one of those scenarios where if you don't
| produce proof you lose a lot credibility. Just saying. Cc
| u/m12k
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| "Unlike other vaccines being trialled, the Oxford team had
| been taking weekly swabs from all volunteers to check
| whether they were infected but showing no symptoms."
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308216
| m-ee wrote:
| This does not mean that this is reflected in the efficacy
| numbers. Read the paper and protocols they very clearly
| specify symptomatic disease confirmed with PCR.
| m-ee wrote:
| They did do more PCR but that isn't reflected in the
| efficacy numbers. The end point for all trials has been
| prevention of symptomatic disease.
| tpmx wrote:
| And where is your source for that?
| m-ee wrote:
| It's quite literally one of the first things mentioned in
| the trial protocols and journal articles
|
| https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746
|
| "The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to
| placebo for the prevention of COVID-19 in adults >= 18
| years of age [ Time Frame: 1 year ]
|
| A binary response, whereby a participant is defined as a
| COVID-19 case if their first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-
| positive symptomatic illness occurs
|
| >= 15 days post second dose of study intervention.
| Otherwise, a participant is not defined as a COVID-19
| case."
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014
| 0-6...
|
| "The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic
| COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid
| amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after
| a second dose of vaccine. "
| tpmx wrote:
| So, to recap:
|
| You claim that only the Oxford trials performed PCR-testing
| everyone regularly, while the Pfizer/Moderna trial only
| bothered to test trial participants who showed symptoms.
|
| You have now had about an hour to provide evidence of this.
| You haven't.
|
| I think you're full of shit. (Would still love to be proven
| wrong.)
| xxel wrote:
| Nothing new from Johnsosn and Johnsons. Johnsons and Johnsosn
| shampoo wash hair 66% too.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-29 23:01 UTC)