- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Johnson & Johnson 1 shot vaccine shows 66% efficacy, 85% v severe disease
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:54 am to notsince98
Posted on 1/29/21 at 10:54 am to notsince98
quote:
notsince98
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:02 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
66% effective in preventing moderate and severe disease in a global Phase 3 trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, the company announced Friday.
Can someone explain this sentence to me. Seems like a contradiction.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:03 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Damn you are dumb
You are aware that studies have indicated possibly greater than 90% natural immunity from COVID, right?
This is based on the asymptomatic rates. If you don't have symptoms after contracting the virus you technically don't have COVID and are immune from it.
Nowhere did the vaccine efficacy studies take this into account. They only included people that were much more likely than average to already be asymptomatic (or immune) to COVID.
But please, continue to not do the research yourself and trust the media.
This post was edited on 1/29/21 at 11:04 am
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:07 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
but was very, very successful against extreme cases, from what I'm reading.
Which is all that really matters. Plus it doesn't have the special handling and storage requirements of the current vaccines.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:08 am to Dizz
quote:
I have seen some Dr on twitter say that had Moderna or Pfizer done their trials at the height of infection like J&J their efficacy would be lower. A lot of Dr believe while still very effective the 90% plus numbers are likely not accurate.
From what I'm reading, Moderna and Pfizer did their trials before the new South African and Brazil variants. Those are proving to be more evasive of the vaccine. I would think Moderna and Pfizer are more likely in the range of J&J now. Those are still pretty good numbers considering the flu shot is usually 40-60% effective.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:10 am to gumpinmizzou
quote:
Moderna and Pfizer did their trials before the new South African and Brazil variants. Those are proving to be more evasive of the vaccine
I haven't heard that at all. In fact I have read the opposite. No difference in effectiveness.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:12 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
I know it will take awhile to study but I am very interested to see what happens when vaccines are given to people who already have some natural immunity due to a previous infection.
Those individuals have a stronger immune response to the vaccine according to the personnel who have me my Covid-19 shot yesterday. Since the immune system is already primed it acts much like how others respond to the 2and dose.
quote:
The amateur scientist in me thinks it would boost efficiency but this area certainly isn't in my wheelhouse.
Regular exposure is what keeps the immune system primed to respond. So getting it, then getting the vaccine isn't hurting anyone.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:19 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
I haven't heard that at all. In fact I have read the opposite. No difference in effectiveness.
Could you link some of what you're reading, would like to check it out.
I just finished this thread on Twitter, which I think is pretty good info LINK
Granted, there could be some of his opinion thrown in there, but I've found him to be a pretty good source on this. Overall, I think things are still very optimistic on the vaccine front.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:24 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
I haven't heard that at all. In fact I have read the opposite. No difference in effectiveness.
I think that effectiveness was based off laboratory settings. I think the idea is that the "in the wild" effectiveness for Pifzer and Moderna is actually lower (still great) and so effectiveness against variants would just be at that same level.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:25 am to Fun Bunch
Tier One
Pfizer
Moderna
Tier Two
Tier Three
Tier Four
Tier Fail
Johnson & Johnson
Pfizer
Moderna
Tier Two
Tier Three
Tier Four
Tier Fail
Johnson & Johnson
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:33 am to notsince98
quote:
They only included people that were much more likely than average to already be asymptomatic (or immune) to COVID.
J&J? I am in the trial and there are two groups, group 1 is healthy and group 2 has underlying conditions.
I did not do any blood work prior to the vaccine.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 11:43 am to Fun Bunch
All the data really isn't true. Sure they have controlled all they can, however they have no idea people's resistance or reaction from Covid. We've seen that first hand without any input at all. Hell,I've witnessed it myself taking care of my son with Covid and none of us getting it. Even though there were plenty of opportunities especially right before he was positive and had symptoms.
Not sure how they can factor natural immunity into it. If they say they are 72% effective against moderate/severe disease, doesn't that sound about like where we are naturally without anything? I would say even a higher percentage than that naturally.
Not sure how they can factor natural immunity into it. If they say they are 72% effective against moderate/severe disease, doesn't that sound about like where we are naturally without anything? I would say even a higher percentage than that naturally.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 12:20 pm to Clames
Maybe they can give this vaccine to colleges and others under 40. Of course once all of those are vaccinated the goal post will move again,
Posted on 1/29/21 at 12:55 pm to Fun Bunch
JNJ, PFE, and MRNA - all likely pretty similar efficacy when it's all said and done.
Consider this:
-Mean age of JNJ trial participants = 69.9
-Mean age of MRNA trial participants = 51.4
-Median age of PFE trial of participants = 52.0 - keep in mind this is median, not mean. Also, 57% of participants were below the age of 55.
Also to consider:
-JNJ trial - Black/Latino/Native American percent of total participants = 73%
-MRNA trial - B/L/NA percent of total = 35%
-PFE trial - B/L/NA percent of total = 37% (study did not report NA numbers)
Finally consider geography:
-JNJ trial - 15% of participants were from South Africa
-MRNA trial - no South African participants noted in study
-PFE trial - 2% of participants were from South Africa
JNJ trial also had a higher incidence of patients with comoridities than that of PFE and MRNA.
Bottom line. Comparing studies is comparing apples and oranges as it is in this instance.
PFE
MRNA
JNJ
Consider this:
-Mean age of JNJ trial participants = 69.9
-Mean age of MRNA trial participants = 51.4
-Median age of PFE trial of participants = 52.0 - keep in mind this is median, not mean. Also, 57% of participants were below the age of 55.
Also to consider:
-JNJ trial - Black/Latino/Native American percent of total participants = 73%
-MRNA trial - B/L/NA percent of total = 35%
-PFE trial - B/L/NA percent of total = 37% (study did not report NA numbers)
Finally consider geography:
-JNJ trial - 15% of participants were from South Africa
-MRNA trial - no South African participants noted in study
-PFE trial - 2% of participants were from South Africa
JNJ trial also had a higher incidence of patients with comoridities than that of PFE and MRNA.
Bottom line. Comparing studies is comparing apples and oranges as it is in this instance.
PFE
MRNA
JNJ
Posted on 1/29/21 at 1:33 pm to gumpinmizzou
quote:
I just finished this thread on Twitter, which I think is pretty good info
Eric Ding is a nutritionist that has been a doom-and-gloomer from jump.
I would take any "science" that he reports with a huge grain of salt.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News