[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Then why all the special freezers?

Because your refrigerator doesn’t go anywhere near -100, you need a special freezer for that.

[Timeweaver1]

The J&J vaccine was tested in South Africa and while only 50% effective against getting covid -- it was 100% effective in that no patients needed to go to the hospital. That's a win for me. Moderna and Pfister are also not effective against the S. African strain since it was not identified during its testing. They are looking at booster shots.

[Binnyboy]

Efficacy is an issue in Africa not in the U.S. People are struggling with Moderna 2nd shot. J &J is a very reputable company. I see no reason to not wait for their vaccine. Patience is a virtue.

[Jnjguy]

While the J&J vaccine was 66% effective in moderate disease it was 100% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death. For an elderly population, that is what you want.

[Banksy]

Very succinct reply. Could not have said it better. Thank you

[DIver0258]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

I would not want the J&J vaccine because of the lower efficacy. One shot vs two of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, I would much prefer the latter two. How do you feel about the lower efficacy of the J&J vaccine? Will you take it?

Fauci says Johnson & Johnson vaccine helpful in COVID-19 fight despite lower efficacy | TheHill

Yes i would take it if offered. We have gotten flu vaccinations every year. The majority of years they have been effective. CDC is guessing what will be the dominate strain each year.

The J&J vaccine reduces the severity of COVID making it much more survivable. If it can be produced and administered in sufficient quantities to be given to the under 65 sector of the population, it would really assist in slowing COVID's spread. Also this would allow the more effective vaccines to be used for the higher risk portion of the population. The combination of both would largely reduce mortality as the spread would be stymied.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

I would not want the J&J vaccine because of the lower efficacy. One shot vs two of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, I would much prefer the latter two. How do you feel about the lower efficacy of the J&J vaccine? Will you take it?

Fauci says Johnson & Johnson vaccine helpful in COVID-19 fight despite lower efficacy | TheHill

It's going to be hard to say, viruses as we know (old biology 101 right... are not static. Also quite interesting today that several The John's Hopkins virologists and M.D.'s believe the one does may last longer and be more effective moving forward, their conclusion is the efficacy may not be on any concern as there would be boosters as the virus replicates and changes in structure, explained that efficacy "stats" do not always reflect that the higher the better, just too many other considerations, but more to come I would guess based on their analysis.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Timeweaver1

The J&J vaccine was tested in South Africa and while only 50% effective against getting covid -- it was 100% effective in that no patients needed to go to the hospital. That's a win for me. Moderna and Pfister are also not effective against the S. African strain since it was not identified during its testing. They are looking at booster shots.

Yes, that was one of many very interesting aspects discussed today with some very interesting doctors, not connected to our government CDC or the WHO, very cogent analysis is that may not be the way to "vaccine shop"....that we should all consider more of the variables and not efficacy if we don't have the background and be sure to discuss on individual basis with own doctor. One noted doctor said, lol, that would be like choosing a new car solely based on color .... I chucked but, actually a very intuitive observation !

[JimJohnson]

Originally Posted by Robbie0723

Only one shot and simple refrigerated storage expands access more quickly.

Less effective at completely preventing COVID but very effective at reducing severity of disease and deaths.

So yes, especially if in a group that may not have access to the RNA vaccines for months. A strategy could be to be to offer to those younger groups.

Next question is getting both vaccines he types has any advantage.

Yes, agree. JJ is a great addition to the vaccine availability. JJ has been proven effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

It's going to be hard to say, viruses as we know (old biology 101 right... are not static. Also quite interesting today that several The John's Hopkins virologists and M.D.'s believe the one does may last longer and be more effective moving forward, their conclusion is the efficacy may not be on any concern as there would be boosters as the virus replicates and changes in structure, explained that efficacy "stats" do not always reflect that the higher the better, just too many other considerations, but more to come I would guess based on their analysis.

Moderna is developing a booster shot for the variant found in South Africa.......

Moderna Developing Vaccine Booster Shot for Virus Strain Identified in South Africa - WSJ

[Altavia]

The Russian vaccine is similar technology with 2 doses.

Peer-reviewed study finds Russia's COVID vaccine is 91.6% effective - CBS News

Peer-reviewed study finds Russia's COVID vaccine is 91.6% effective

Russia's Sputnik V vaccine is 91.6 percent effective against symptomatic COVID-19 infection, according to results published in The Lancet on Tuesday that some independent experts say should allay transparency concerns over the jab, which Moscow is already rolling out. Sputnik V — named after the Soviet-era satellite — was approved in Russia months before results from its final-stage clinical trials were published, leading to skepticism from experts.

The new analysis of data from 20,000 participants in Phase 3 trials suggests that the two-dose vaccination offers more than 90 percent efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19, according to The Lancet study.

"The development of the Sputnik V vaccine has been criticized for unseemly haste, corner cutting, and an absence of transparency," said an independent Lancet commentary by Ian Jones of the University of Reading and Polly Roy of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "But the outcome reported here is clear and the scientific principle of vaccination is demonstrated, which means another vaccine can now join the fight to reduce the incidence of COVID-19."

Pre-empting the results of the phase 3 trials, Russia has already launched a mass inoculation campaign for citizens 18 and older.

Several countries around the world have already registered Sputnik V, according to the Russian Direct Investment Fund which helped develop the vaccine, including Belarus, Venezuela, Bolivia and Algeria.

In January, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany had offered Russia support in Moscow's development of Sputnik V, after Russian authorities said they had applied for registration in the European Union.

The Russian trial

The trial involved giving 14,964 participants in the vaccine group and 4,902 in the placebo group two jabs 21 days apart. The trial was carried out at 25 different hospitals and clinics, all in the Moscow region.

Those taking part were tested for COVID-19 at enrolment into the trial, again when they had the second dose and then after that if they reported symptoms.

From the second dose, 16 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 were confirmed in the vaccine group and 62 cases were reported in the placebo group, giving an efficacy equivalent to 91.6 percent.

The authors said, however, that efficacy was only calculated on symptomatic cases and said more research would be needed to assess how it affects asymptomatic disease.

They added that the follow-up period was around 48 days from the first dose, so the full period of protection is still unknown. The trial is ongoing and plans to recruit a total of 40,000 people.

Sputnik V uses two different disarmed strains of the adenovirus, a virus that causes the common cold, as vectors to deliver the vaccine dose.

Developers said that using a different adenovirus vector for the booster vaccination minimizes the risk of the immune system developing resistance to the initial vector, so it may help create a more powerful response.

Alexander Edwards, an Associate Professor in Biomedical Technology at the University of Reading, said the trial might help provide evidence to this theory of immune response.

"Pandemic means 'all' — and the only way to address a global problem is with a global response — sharing data, science, technology and medicines," he said.

The vaccine has the advantage of being able to be stored at normal refrigerator temperatures instead of the conditions far below freezing required for some other vaccines.

First published on February 2, 2021 / 9:29 AM

[Two Bills]

It gives a 66% better chance against the virus than nothing!

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

It gives a 66% better chance against the virus than nothing!

Agree, but as others have said on this thread, if given the choice of vaccines, I would prefer Moderna or Pfizer with the higher efficacy. Having said that, these variant strains have thrown a monkey wrench into the efficacy of the vaccines we have now. This will be an uphill battle against this mutating virus for the time being.

[Boston-Sean]

Disclaimer: I don't know who put this together but it appears to be a summary of the sources listed at the end.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Jnjguy

While the J&J vaccine was 66% effective in moderate disease it was 100% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death. For an elderly population, that is what you want.

Actually, in the test trials the U.S. had a 75% efficacy. The 66% number must have come as an average of the combined countries testing. Africa had about the lowest results and the U.S. had the highest I believe. I can't remember the source for my number. It may have been on the J&J website, but I can't say for sure. One doctor said that it may very well handle the African mutations better than the other serums.