Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

The mRNA vaccines are obviously the gold standard, they&#x27;re what you want, if you&#x27;re in a position to pick.<p>The traditional vaccines, like this one and the Astra Zeneca one appear to be efficient at preventing hospitalization&#x2F;death. That&#x27;s great - it will ease the extreme load on the hospitals, and also reduce deaths greatly.<p>What I&#x27;m concerned about is the long-term chronical diseases that&#x27;s been reported (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mayoclinic.org&#x2F;diseases-conditions&#x2F;coronavirus&#x2F;in-depth&#x2F;coronavirus-long-term-effects&#x2F;art-20490351" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mayoclinic.org&#x2F;diseases-conditions&#x2F;coronavirus&#x2F;i...</a>), hitting a substantial part of the infected.<p>We need more clarity to which degree the non-mRNA-vaccines prevent these pretty horrobile chronic diseases.

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].<p>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&#x2F;death).<p>tl;dr: each vaccine group made reasonable, independent choices for their effectiveness metrics, but they’re not the same metric.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jnj.com&#x2F;johnson-johnson-announces-single-shot-janssen-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-met-primary-endpoints-in-interim-analysis-of-its-phase-3-ensemble-trial" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jnj.com&#x2F;johnson-johnson-announces-single-shot-ja...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jnj.com&#x2F;coronavirus&#x2F;covid-19-phase-3-study-clinical-protocol" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jnj.com&#x2F;coronavirus&#x2F;covid-19-phase-3-study-clini...</a>

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&#x27;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&#x2F;2 trial data I saw, I&#x27;d expect a second shot to boost the efficacy to numbers approaching the mRNA vaccines.<p>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.

66% protection against getting moderate to severe Covid but 100% protection against death and hospitalization.<p>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.

I&#x27;m really struggling to understand these numbers.<p>In some other articles I&#x27;m seeing that it offers 100% protection against hospitalisation and death.<p>&quot;The J&amp;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.&quot; [1]<p>Wouldn&#x27;t having &quot;severe&quot; infection require hospitilisation?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ft.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;d05c7c57-da11-42a1-aa33-b66052c904ac" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ft.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;d05c7c57-da11-42a1-aa33-b66052c90...</a>

Bloomberg quoted “No severe allergic reactions,” to the J&amp;J, yet my cousin-in-law is in the hospital right now with Guillain–Barré syndrome following the J&amp;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.<p>NB: I’m not advocating there is anything largely wrong or unsafe about it.

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&#x27;t have time&#x2F;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].<p>Back to J&amp;J. How old were the 15% that did develop the most serious symptoms? The article says that &quot;more than 40 per cent had other illnesses [...] including obesity, diabetes and HIV.&quot; Isn&#x27;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).<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;future&#x2F;article&#x2F;20210114-covid-19-how-effective-is-a-single-vaccine-dose" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;future&#x2F;article&#x2F;20210114-covid-19-how-eff...</a>

The NIH news release <i>Janssen Investigational COVID-19 Vaccine: Interim Analysis of Phase 3 Clinical Data Released</i> [1]:<p>&gt; 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.<p>&gt; 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.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nih.gov&#x2F;news-events&#x2F;news-releases&#x2F;janssen-investigational-covid-19-vaccine-interim-analysis-phase-3-clinical-data-released" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nih.gov&#x2F;news-events&#x2F;news-releases&#x2F;janssen-invest...</a>

imo 66% effectiveness is pretty good, not on a personal level, but at the population policy level. I&#x27;m glad to get another vaccine on the market soon.

For a virus where 99+% recover naturally? Imo this was way overblown. The cure, in the form of RNA modification seems much scarier. What happens when new vaccines in this form interact with each other? I don&#x27;t know, and no one else does. Hard pass for me.

Is it possible to get J&amp;J first and then get the Moderna, etc. later on for more protection?

66% effectiveness in one shot is better than 50% - 1&#x2F;2 shots where there is not enough vaccines to go around.<p>In some places people are not getting both shots of vaccines. FDA approved two different shots of 2 shot vaccines.<p>At this time they should just immunize everybody with one shot at least.

Nothing new from Johnsosn and Johnsons. Johnsons and Johnsosn shampoo wash hair 66% too.