Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,284
Registered: ‎10-01-2013

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant

I'm so confused.

Super Contributor
Posts: 333
Registered: ‎10-30-2011

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant

@shoesnbags 

 

Then I guess I won't be able to take anything...

 

Thanks

 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,114
Registered: ‎08-21-2014

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant


@RetRN wrote:

I'm so confused.


You're not alone. Too many vaccines too many variants of the virus. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,026
Registered: ‎05-23-2010

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant

[ Edited ]

@noodleann wrote:

Effective against S. African variant?

 

The NYT is reporting otherwise.

"The vaccine’s efficacy rate dropped from 72 percent in the United States to just 57 percent in South Africa, where a highly contagious variant is driving most cases."

 

I wouldn't call 57% "effective." Not when we've got standards set now for over 90% effectiveness. Even the 72% isn't enough. It means that more than one out of four people won't be adequately protected. I don't like those odds, and I was looking forward to this vaccine.

 

But it's better than nothing, and both the single dose and the less demanding storage requirements make this a good candidate for those countries that haven't had any vaccine at all.


@noodleann @Hello, noodleann. It was still 85% effective against severe disease and death in South Africa, including those participants that were tested and found to have the S. African variant. They might have caught the virus, but they were not likely to die or have severe disease requiring hospitalization. Unfortunately, on this thread, we have all been getting the news about the vaccine in bits and pieces, so I have a link to the company's complete news release, including discussion right here. This is an original source so you will be able to see the whole picture. You'd expect the South Africans to be more likely to catch COVID because the more transmissible South African variant is there; and that is what happened, this is why S. African efficacy against all diagnosed but those that caught COVID there were protected against severe disease. So more people in SA caught mild or moderate  COVID because of the high transmissibility of the SA variant. Moderna and Pfizer are only 95% effective against severe disease as well. The 95% does not apply to catching COVID. Neither Modern nor Pfizer could PCR test all of their participants to see if they did catch COVID but were asymptomatic, so the two companies don't know if their vaccines completely prevent catching the virus yet. Moreover, neither Pfizer or Moderna was testing their vaccines in populations with the S. African variant, so you have to think that if they were doing so; would their efficacy against severe COVID remain the same and would more moderate, mild or asymptomatic cases have emerged under the circumstance of exposure to the SA variant?

I wanted to add that I enjoy  reading your posts and discussing science and medicine with you. 

 

Directly from J & J, the whole shebang

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjG9Pq2tsHuAhWFZM0KHadRAscQ...

 

 

@noodleann 

THE COMPLETE PHASE 3 PROTOCOL 

 

https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/covid-19-phase-3-study-clinical-protocol

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,026
Registered: ‎05-23-2010

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant


@RetRN wrote:

I'm so confused.


@RetRN @Just read the complete release from J & J and you won't be confused. The piecemeal posts in the thread are getting confusing. The media articles give a piecemeal picture as well.

Here's the original release directly from J & J:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjG9Pq2tsHuAhWFZM0KHadRAscQ...

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,457
Registered: ‎06-10-2015

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant


@Mindy D wrote:

@RetRN wrote:

I'm so confused.


@RetRN @Just read the complete release from J & J and you won't be confused. The piecemeal posts in the thread are getting confusing. The media articles give a piecemeal picture as well.

Here's the original release directly from J & J:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjG9Pq2tsHuAhWFZM0KHadRAscQ...


 

Now you can call ME confused.

 

@Mindy D , in another thread you rightly dismiss information being published by the nose spray people because it's PR(and that they've come a cropper with the FDA), but then you cite PR from J&J as evidence?

 

The NYT is deeply fallible, but I'm going with its numbers.

 

This doesn't matter to me personally anyway because I'm waiting for an approved vaccine, not an experimental one. That's likely at least a year away. But I hope the countries that have been cut out of the solutions get something, even something this imperfect.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,593
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant


@SchippyLuv wrote:

@shoesnbags 

 

Then I guess I won't be able to take anything...

 

Thanks

 


@SchippyLuv 

Don't get discouraged.  None of us knows how any of this will roll out from day to day - including apparently, the "experts."  Maybe there will be accomodations made for those who can't take the first two vaccines to go somewhere that the J&J vaccine is available.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,026
Registered: ‎05-23-2010

Re: Johnson & Johnson effective against South African variant


@noodleann wrote:

@Mindy D wrote:

@RetRN wrote:

I'm so confused.


@RetRN @Just read the complete release from J & J and you won't be confused. The piecemeal posts in the thread are getting confusing. The media articles give a piecemeal picture as well.

Here's the original release directly from J & J:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjG9Pq2tsHuAhWFZM0KHadRAscQ...


 

Now you can call ME confused.

 

@Mindy D , in another thread you rightly dismiss information being published by the nose spray people because it's PR(and that they've come a cropper with the FDA), but then you cite PR from J&J as evidence?

 

The NYT is deeply fallible, but I'm going with its numbers.

 

This doesn't matter to me personally anyway because I'm waiting for an approved vaccine, not an experimental one. That's likely at least a year away. But I hope the countries that have been cut out of the solutions get something, even something this imperfect.


@noodleann I did not dismiss the information. I just pointed it out. As I also pointed out later in the thread, press releases are used for disseminating information from pharma companies and universities. I did dismiss the post later in the thread, about a single report from the company that the FDA sent a warning letter to cease making specific claims based on specific information. I also pointed out, cynically, that company' press releases can be tools used to market products. It's my opinion that this press release is marketing designed to look 'scientific.'  Press releases, can have different aims from the companies releasing them. J & J is also making a press release about their vaccine. Which can also help them in marketing their product. J & J's press release is backed by their clinical trial data as evidence. The trial data is released and will be subject to review and will be utilized in J & J's request for  compassionate use authorization for their vaccine  from the FDA. I'm sorry, but I'm not a good writer, and I should be better able to write about these distinctions.