This message was self-deleted by its author

[hamsterjill]

This message was self-deleted by its author (hamsterjill) on Thu Sep 2, 2021, 02:53 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. YES!!

People keep on trying to trash the J&J shot, but it looks like it's even better than the others.

(Feeling smug. Got the J&J.)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. The ugly stepchild. That's appropriate.

Maybe there was something better in the one and done in the first place.

I will honestly say that at the very beginning I didn't fully understand why two shots were needed. But, not being a medical person, who was I do question that?

I am almost always masked when out in public. I have the good fortune to live in northern New Mexico where most people are still masking, which is nice.

[StarryNite]

6. "ugly stepchild of the vaccines"

That's a great way to describe it. Some on here have even suggested that the ones of us who got the J&J should go get a booster of one of the other vaccines. If the mix and match is fully tested and the doctors and scientists tell us we should do it then I would certainly get one of the others as a booster. But it doesn't seem right that people on here who are not scientists or doctors are recommending it at this time. Some do act like it's a competition between the vaccines and that as you so aptly put it, the J&J is the "ugly stepchild of the vaccines". I sincerely hope all the vaccines are safe and effective for now and for other variants as they come along. This pandemic is far, far from over.

I too continue with all the safety precautions, it's the prudent thing to do.

[smirkymonkey]

2. Good to know!

I got the J&J shot and I am finally glad to hear some positive news for once.

[Celerity]

9. Try selling the American public on the J&J vax, with only 91 to 96% effectiveness rate against death

and only a 71% effectiveness rate in terms of prevention of hospitalisation, when it come to Delta.

That is what this massive study (almost 500,000 people) is showing. No clue how this is being spun as a good thing.

Just a few days ago (to go to the other end of the spectrum on claims), you had people here ludicrously claiming that the Pfizer vax was 99.924% effective against ALL simple transmission, lol.

Now are we to think that people will magically accept only a 91% to 96% effectiveness rate against death? Or accept only a 71% effectiveness rate that you do not end up in the hospital?

For ages the US (and other nations TBF) has been telling people there is almost no chance at hospitalisation or death if you are fully vaxxed. These J &J numbers are FAR from that against Delta.

I strongly remember people (including some on DU) very unhappy when the numbers for the J&J vax were around 72% (some studies showed as low as 66%, see below) efficacy against simple transmission of the much weaker origin strain:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/health/coronavirus-johnson-vaccine-delta.html

That left some people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine asking, What about us?

The frustration was building even before the Delta variant emerged. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance that vaccinated people could forgo masks indoors in many situations, for instance, was based mostly on data for mRNA vaccines. And reports of a cluster of infections among players on the Yankees baseball team who had received the J.&J. shot did nothing to assuage fears that the vaccine might be inferior to others.

Martha Young, 63, of Mountain View, Calif., received the J.&J. shot on April 9. It was not her first choice, but it was what was being offered. But since then, she said, “I’ve been very, very frustrated by the lack of information.”

She added, referring to the J.&J. vaccine, “I felt like I didn’t count, like I was statistically insignificant because so few of us have the shot that they didn’t have to worry about us.”

Some people who were immunized with the J.&J. vaccine complained that they felt cheated by experts who had said the vaccines were all equally good. “I was surprised to see others making this claim,” said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida. “I didn’t like it. People don’t want to feel misled.”

But other experts said the clinical trials should have made it apparent that the efficacy of the J.&J. vaccine was lower than that of the mRNA vaccines. “Seventy-two percent is of course lower than 95 or 94 percent,” said Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

.

More on that SA study, in terms of death prevention

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-safrica-idAFL8N2P618W

Aug 6 (Reuters) - A South African study has shown the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine offers over 90% protection against death, the joint lead investigator for the country's J&J trial, Glenda Gray, said on Friday.

"We can report that the single jab J&J vaccine protected between 91% to 96.2% of healthcare workers against death," Gray said.

"This was our primary endpoint and we are able to say this vaccine protected health workers against death."

Here is a US study (with the caveat of it not yet finishing peer-review)

Also, that 33% efficacy highlighted is against having symptomatic disease, the actual numbers for stopping any transmission are even lower:

Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Far Less Effective Against Delta Variant, Study Suggests

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/07/20/johnson--johnson-vaccine-far-less-effective-against-delta-variant-study-suggests/?sh=609a376f4299

A study from a team of New York University researchers found the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine is far less effective at preventing coronavirus infections from the Delta variant and other mutated forms of the virus than from earlier strains, a concerning find since the Delta variant now accounts for almost all U.S. Covid-19 cases.








J.&J. Vaccine May Be Less Effective Against Delta, Study Suggests

Many who received the shot may need to consider boosters, the authors said. But federal health officials do not recommend second doses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/health/coronavirus-johnson-vaccine-delta.html

The coronavirus vaccine made by Johnson & Johnson is much less effective against the Delta and Lambda variants than against the original virus, according to a new study posted online on Tuesday.

Although troubling, the findings result from experiments conducted with blood samples in a laboratory, and may not reflect the vaccine’s performance in the real world. But the conclusions add to evidence that the 13 million people inoculated with the J.&J. vaccine may need to receive a second dose — ideally of one of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, the authors said.

The conclusions are at odds with those from smaller studies published by Johnson & Johnson earlier this month suggesting that a single dose of the vaccine is effective against the variant even eight months after inoculation.

The new study has not yet been peer reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. But it is consistent with observations that a single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine — which has a similar architecture to the J.&J. vaccine — shows only about 33 percent efficacy against symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant.

Ad26.COV2.S is the full name of the J & J vax, BNT162b2 is the Pfizer vax, mRNA-1273 the Moderna vax







Table S2. Neutralization of viruses by sera from BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 and Ad26.COV.S vaccinated individuals.

(my add: SD means standard deviation from the mean, the lower the SD, the closer to mean the results (also called the expected value) are in terms of distribution)

[madville]

10. People don't know how to interpret the numbers unfortunately and take them at face value

That's one thing the news does a horrible job with, explaining these numbers. When people see something like "it's 95% effective at preventing death", many think that means that 5 out of 100 people are dying and 95 out of 100 will live (which would be worse than the current numbers for unvaccinated people). Same with the other number, "70% effective at preventing hospitalization", that doesn't mean 30 out of 100 vaccinated people are getting hospitalized.

It means that it's 95% more effective at preventing death or 70% more effective at preventing hospitalization if infected VERSUS being unvaccinated and infected.

I think about it like this, say 100 out of 1000 unvaccinated people that get infected get hospitalized. If the J&J vaccine is 70% effective at preventing that then 30 out of 1000 vaccinated people that get infected would require hospitalization. Same with the 95% effective at preventing death stat, if 20 out of 1000 unvaccinated people that get infected are dying, then only 1 out of 1000 vaccinated people that get infected would likely die because it's 95% more effective at preventing death versus being unvaccinated.

[LisaL]

11. 71% effectiveness against hospitalization is pretty low.

We were told that mRNA vaccines are in the nineties against hospitalization. Of course with delta who actually knows.

[madville]

13. The J&J vaccine was in the nineties as far as preventing hospitalization as well

It performed similarly to the mRNA vaccines in that regard with the previous COVID variants. I'll see if I can find some recent data about the mRNA performance against Delta specifically, but it too will likely be lower with Delta than it was against the original variants.

A big question now is also time. How much does the vaccine effectiveness wane after 90 days or 6 month? If J&J was 93% effective preventing hospitalization against the Alpha strain, but 71& effective against Delta, could some of that lower number be attributed to the vaccine losing effectiveness after people have had it for 6 months? Will a booster bring that number back up?

[LisaL]

17. Yes, I know J&J was in the nineties during clinical trials against hospitalization.

I don't think it loses effectiveness with time, rather doesn't start off as high as mRNA vaccines in the particular study we are discussing. In which case a booster will increase antibody levels to the levels of mRNA vaccines and make it more effective.

[Celerity]

14. I never stated that 4% to 9% would die, nor stated that 29% would end up hospitalised.

I only spoke of the comparative effectiveness rates in terms of death and hospitalisations. The J & J vax is far lower on both of those metrics than the 2 mRNA vaxxes.

[madville]

16. I never said you did

Please point out where I said that you stated that. You said something about trying to sell those effectiveness rates to the "American Public", and I said the news does a poor job of explaining the numbers to the public because many interpret the numbers to be far more dire than they really are.

What is the effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines specifically against Delta? That's what I would like to see to compare these new Delta/J&J numbers to.

[Celerity]

19. I was replying to to this

When people see something like "it's 95% effective at preventing death", many think that means that 5 out of 100 people are dying and 95 out of 100 will live

and then adapting that numerical comparison to the South African study's J & J vaccine's 91-96% effectiveness rate against death from Delta, and the 71% effectiveness rate against hospitalisation from Delta

you correctly said 95% effectiveness rate at preventing death is misinterpreted by some to mean 5 out of 100 (5%) will die

I was simply saying I was NOT making that mistake (and doing so by using the actual numbers of the study, which would yield a 4% to 9% death rate and 29% hospitalisation rate IF I was making that mistake that the example you put up illustrated, ie. 95% effectiveness against death falsely yielding the conclusion that 5% will die)

[madville]

21. See we agreed the whole time

That's awesome.

[Celerity]

22. lol, all good, and give me a bit and I will pull up some more studies on the 2 mRNA vaxxes against

the Delta and (hopefully) Lambda variants.

At the bottom of my original reply there is one such (granted non peer-reviewed) study, which does have some data on both Delta and Lambda.

[LisaL]

12. I guess it's spun as a good thing because it doesn't seems J&J is becoming less effective with time,

at least during the time period studied.
Unfortunately it doesn't start off really high.
That said, I would like to get good numbers on how effective Pfizer and Moderna actually are against delta.
A lot of numbers being thrown at the public don't actually include delta.

[Celerity]

15. I posted some data from a study about all 3 vaxxes against the different variants. See the bottom

of my post.

[DenaliDemocrat]

18. You actually spun in-vitro studies as superior

To a huge, N, in real world, biased -high study.

Just for the record, the meta data for Jansen begins calculating efficacy at day 14. Immunity increases to day 56 and beyond, at which point it rivals the mRNA.

Jansen does produce lower tigers of neutralizing antibodies BUT has a more robust T-cell response.

90% plus protection in hospital workers who are among the most exposed to heavy viral loads is outstanding. This is a biased high situation and it performed exceptionally well.

[Celerity]

20. I made no such claim as to superiority, I only provided the study data as it included data (for

the 3 main US-used vaccines) against the variants, including Delta and Lambda.

[DenaliDemocrat]

23. No, you provided in-vitro studies

Which really only looked at neutralizing antibodies and wrote a rather tilted response

[Celerity]

29. again, I provided that study for data purposes in terms of the 3 main vaccines against

the various variants.

I simply posted the other articles and then some charts from the study referenced as a data point. I also added that is was not peer-reviewed. Many people (including some in this thread) are asking for data on the Pfizer and the Moderna against Delta. That particular study also included data against Lambda.

The comparative efficacy and/or effectiveness rates in terms of all major metrics for the J % J jab are much lower than what is being seen (and has been seen for ages) for the two mRNA vaxxes, especially against some of the variants. That is for all types of studies, whether clinical or in the real world.

[DenaliDemocrat]

30. Again, that is simply untrue

There are no really high quality studies that compare the efficacy of J&J vs mRNA vs delta.

It just doesn’t exist. Are you even a scientist?

[LisaL]

31. Some states are starting to release their breakthrough data for each of the vaccines.

I don't think there is any data supporting that J&J is more efficient than mRNA vaccines. It had lower efficacy in clinical trials, and likely in the real world as well.


"Johnson & Johnson has the most at more than 102 breakthrough cases per 100,000.

Pfizer and Moderna are nearly neck and neck. Moderna, though, recorded the least amount of breakthrough cases at almost 57 cases per 100,000."

https://www.newson6.com/story/60f05713f4010b0bf64da8ca/number-of-breakthrough-cases-for-fully-vaccinated-people-remains-low-despite-rise-in-covid19-cases

[DenaliDemocrat]

32. All anecdotal at this point.

When someone runs an ANOVA and gives me a p-value from peer reviewed journals I’ll start to form an opinion. This is no better than the ivermectin and Chloroquine studies that came out.

[LisaL]

35. It's consistent with clinical trial data showing lower efficacy.

Lower efficacy-more breakthrough infections.
Not sure why you insist on arguing otherwise. Looking for this information, it appears to be consistent among the states that are reporting these numbers.
Here is the data from CA. Again, you have more breakthroughs with J&J compared to Pfizer and Moderna (which appears to be doing the best of the three across different states).

"As of this week, only 0.27% of people fully vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had later become infected — compared with 0.15% of Pfizer-BioNTech recipients and 0.09% of those who got Moderna."

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-30/breakthrough-cases-rising-in-l-a-but-vaccinated-still-hold-strong-protections

[Celerity]

33. just because you do not like the answer doesn't invalidate anything I posted

[DenaliDemocrat]

34. It certainly does. You irresponsibly presented

Pre-print articles with weak power, poor controls, and no statistics and used it to bolster your argument.

It’s anecdotal at worst, or very weak preliminary data at best.

Again, are you even a scientist?

[Celerity]

36. Stop trying to assign malign acts to me. There have been dozens, likely hundreds, of pre print

studies posted here. I was transparent from the beginning and stated it was non peer-reviewed. If you have an issue with it being published, then take it up with the New York Times and Forbes, which is where I got it from. Apparently they are being 'irresponsible', given your diktats, and your positing yourself as the unilateral arbiter of Covid discussion.

[DenaliDemocrat]

37. So, no. You aren't a scientist

Pre-prints are meh. The Jansen vaccine is proving to be highly effective n real world scenarios. Pfizer’s number coming out of Israel Isn’t particularly good if we are going off of observation

[LisaL]

24. In the real life, in the US, J&J appears to be having more breakthrough cases compared to

Moderna. In which case providing a booster is clearly going to be beneficial. I really don't see what is the issue with providing a booster for J&J if people want it? Seems like providing a booster is going to give the best protection for people. I had Moderna and I still want a booster. Boosters have been shown to increase antibody levels, which is what we need for delta.

“We see fewer than expected vaccine breakthrough cases in children, 12 to 17, but more in older age groups,” she said. “We are seeing more vaccine breakthrough cases with the Janssen, or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, and the Pfizer vaccine compared to Moderna.”
https://www.cpr.org/2021/08/02/breakthrough-covid-cases-vaccinated-colorado/

[DenaliDemocrat]

25. I fully expect to become infected

It is unavoidable in my opinion. I am trusting the vaccines have primed my immune system to t-cell and b-cell response will be robust and I will clear the virus in days.

Expecting to have extreme titers of neutralizing antibodies year round in perpetuity is not realistic.

[LisaL]

26. I prefer to not become infected.

We were told from the start that vaccines will likely need to be re-administered regularly.
I really don't see what the issue is with authorizing boosters. Especially considering third of adults in this country refuse to get vaccinated. So what's wrong with using their doses for boosters?

[DenaliDemocrat]

27. I'll probably take a booster, but I don't expect to

NOT catch it.