Knowing we were so close to several viable options that had very high efficacy against some of the “older” strains, but we dropped the ball because we didn’t want to wear masks, or skip the holidays, or give up indoor dining, is a little depressing.
I share your frustration on this. I know we cannot undo the past, but I keep thinking back to how we could have tackled this so much better as a country in the spring, which could have helped raise efficacy rates for J&J. We'd still be dealing with outbreaks, but we wouldn't be up to 25 million cases and counting and overwhelmed hospitals and nearly half a million deaths. We keep talking about foreign variants as if a country with a quarter of the world's cases can't possibly have several of its own homegrown variants because we just didn't want to do what we had to do to tame this and not let it mutate as much as it has.
and that so many of these cases of occurred and variants have been identified in the last three months. when we had a pretty good idea about what it took to slow the spread of this virus, when we understood which behaviors were riskier... but we didn't care enough - because we were tired.
Ok, I promise I'm done publicly moping. I'll take it to my therapist and continue to root for everyone getting a damn shot!
melmaria, I don't see the full data yet but when they release it (soon) we will be able to see a complete breakdown of outcomes. The FDA data packages for Pfizer and Moderna were over 50 pages each and left no stone unturned.
I do not have time at the moment to look at each protocol for each vaccine trial, but yes there is a definition for the protocol of severe for the trials. Google might be able to help if you google each individual trial and the protocols that they followed.
You’re right, I shouldn’t be so lazy. I was just surprised the media hadn’t summarized/addressed this because I haven’t seen it discussed in any news article.
From J&J’s website: “In the study, the definition of severe COVID-19 disease included laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: signs consistent with severe systemic illness, admission to an intensive care unit, respiratory failure, shock, organ failure or death, among other factors. Moderate COVID-19 disease was defined as laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: evidence of pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, shortness of breath or abnormal blood oxygen saturation above 93%, abnormal respiratory rate (≥20); or two or more systemic symptoms suggestive of COVID-19.”
Their definition of “severe” sounds pretty bad - still not sure I understand what was happening with the 15% of severe cases if no one was hospitalized.
"85% Effective Overall in Preventing Severe Disease and Demonstrated Complete Protection Against COVID-19 related Hospitalization and Death as of Day 28 "
I obviously haven't seen the detailed report that will be released later, but this is probably related to the infographic someone posted above (that the protection against severe disease improves over time (compare infections after Day 28 post-vax vs after Day 49 post-vax). The "overall" categories include all outcomes from Day 15 onward (14 days post-vax) if you read the description on clinicaltrials.gov. That statement from the link you posted is basically saying:
"85% Effective Overall in Preventing Severe Disease" = for people who got the vaccine and then got COVID on or after Day 15, 85% did not get severe disease.
AND
"Demonstrated Complete Protection Against COVID-19 related Hospitalization and Death as of Day 28 " = for people who got COVID on or after Day 28 post-vax, none of them were hospitalized for COVID-related reasons or died.
There are a lot of ways to break down all the data, and it's important to do these different analyses because people really need to know that the "two weeks to mount an immune response" does not mean peak protection. Abandoning masks and social distancing/isolation on Day 14 or Day 28 is much riskier than Day 50.
My Dad who has been sick for a week and got a negative result just tested again and got a +. He is 70 and is scheduled to get Regeneron on Monday. I hope that he does okay over the weekend and that my stepmom doesn’t get it too. This is just awful.
Sending positive thoughts for your dad and stepmom. Hopefully his case is mild and if he isolates that she can avoid it. My parents are around your dad's age and got the Eli Lily treatment (similar to Regeneron) when they had Covid and my mom really thinks it helped her not to get sicker so hopefully that will help your dad as well.
My Dad who has been sick for a week and got a negative result just tested again and got a +. He is 70 and is scheduled to get Regeneron on Monday. I hope that he does okay over the weekend and that my stepmom doesn’t get it too. This is just awful.
Sending positive thoughts for your dad and stepmom. Hopefully his case is mild and if he isolates that she can avoid it. My parents are around your dad's age and got the Eli Lily treatment (similar to Regeneron) when they had Covid and my mom really thinks it helped her not to get sicker so hopefully that will help your dad as well.
Thank you! I’m trying to stay positive. I know the IV treatments have good results...I just wish he was getting it today and not having to wait until Monday.
This inequity is basically guaranteed. Rich countries have already bought up the "best." Within those rich countries there are many examples of privilege increasing access.
This is true. However, the J&J vaccine is still an important option for less wealthy countries that don't yet have the same infrastructure/logistical ability to handle the cold storage that the Pfizer vaccine requires. ...
I totally agree we need all options! I was just saying that rich countries have already bought up most of the more effective vaccines, which already leads to inequality.
In other words, I think both of these things are true:
1) rich people are more likely to have access to the most effective vaccines, which is problematic from an equity viewpoint, and
2) having more vaccines, even if slightly less effective, is better for all of us, and especially for disadvantages people who can't access the most effective ones
ETA and access to the infrastructure for storing and distributing the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is also a rich-vs-poor issue, so I meant that to be part of the big picture.
This is true. However, the J&J vaccine is still an important option for less wealthy countries that don't yet have the same infrastructure/logistical ability to handle the cold storage that the Pfizer vaccine requires. ...
I totally agree we need all options! I was just saying that rich countries have already bought up most of the more effective vaccines, which already leads to inequality.
In other words, I think both of these things are true:
1) rich people are more likely to have access to the most effective vaccines, which is problematic from an equity viewpoint, and
2) having more vaccines, even if slightly less effective, is better for all of us, and especially for disadvantages people who can't access the most effective ones
ETA and access to the infrastructure for storing and distributing the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is also a rich-vs-poor issue, so I meant that to be part of the big picture.
I would also like to point out that I don't think we can compare the vaccines head to head in regards to efficacy. Efficacy is what happens during trials in ideal situations and effectiveness is what happens in real world situations. We don't know the true effectiveness yet since vaccinating the public has just started.
The J&J vaccine was trialed against different variants from my understanding of reading the initial information based on people being located in different countries. I don't think we have the data in regards to the trials for moderna and pfizer. We might see a lower effectiveness within those vaccines.
I'm 100% for equity, but I don't think we can right now automatically say due to present circumstances which vaccine is ultimately the most effective due to variations worldwide. Unfortunately, I think regardless of the vaccines efficacy and effectiveness rich countries were going to buy up everything right away. That's unfortunately how the world works :/
"Still, "not a single person who got vaccinated, and had illness after four weeks, ended up in the hospital," Dr. Mathai Mammen, global head of pharmaceutical research and development at Johnson & Johnson, told NBC News. This "leads me to believe that this vaccine will stop this pandemic."
This is what is making me optimistic, and it took a shift of thinking for me. I guess Covid isn't going to disappear, but if vaccinated people get a mild case (like a flu shot can sometimes prevent more severe cases) and don't need to be hospitalized, that's pretty damn good.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
I’m alternating between very hopeful about the actual data and rage pissed at media headlines.
This is exactly where I am at.
I thought the J & J news was fantastic. The framing of it though is rage inducing.
Your husband has invested heavily in hopes of the J&J vaccine and you’ve said you two won’t get a different vaccine, right? So you might not have the most impartial perspective on this.
Ignore the headlines and wait to see what happens with approval. They aren’t going to be swayed by the media. Once approval happens, people will but it. Sweating these intermediary moments will just drive you crazy.
I thought the J & J news was fantastic. The framing of it though is rage inducing.
Your husband has invested heavily in hopes of the J&J vaccine and you’ve said you two won’t get a different vaccine, right? So you might not have the most impartial perspective on this.
Ignore the headlines and wait to see what happens with approval. They aren’t going to be swayed by the media. Once approval happens, people will but it. Sweating these intermediary moments will just drive you crazy.
I’m pretty sure that’s not eddy and what a weird thing to misattribute to someone.
Post by wanderingback on Jan 29, 2021 22:16:52 GMT -5
Ok this article confirms what I said above re: not being able to compare Johnson & Johnson to the others directly. For the record, moderna wasn’t even studied in participants outside of the US. Pfizer was studied in other counties including S Africa, Brazil, Turkey, etc.
The J&J vaccine did indeed prevent hospitalization in those that received the vaccine even in S Africa.
"Johnson & Johnson's Mammen pushed back against comparing its vaccine with those from Moderna and Pfizer.
"It's really hard to compare numbers head-to-head right now without running a study with two vaccines," he said.
Mammen said there were key differences between the trials; for example, Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was tested later, when cases were surging even higher in many parts of the world and new variants of coronavirus were already circulating. One in particular, called B.351, was dominant in South Africa when the vaccine was tested there. This variant has mutations that might be expected to weaken the vaccine's effects somewhat."
Your husband has invested heavily in hopes of the J&J vaccine and you’ve said you two won’t get a different vaccine, right? So you might not have the most impartial perspective on this.
Ignore the headlines and wait to see what happens with approval. They aren’t going to be swayed by the media. Once approval happens, people will but it. Sweating these intermediary moments will just drive you crazy.
I’m pretty sure that’s not eddy and what a weird thing to misattribute to someone.
Your husband has invested heavily in hopes of the J&J vaccine and you’ve said you two won’t get a different vaccine, right? So you might not have the most impartial perspective on this.
Ignore the headlines and wait to see what happens with approval. They aren’t going to be swayed by the media. Once approval happens, people will but it. Sweating these intermediary moments will just drive you crazy.
I’m pretty sure that’s not eddy and what a weird thing to misattribute to someone.
there is definitely a poster whose husband has a professional financial stake in the J&J vaccine and has been waiting for that one as a result. I don't know why i mistakenly thought it was you.
I hope Congressman Lynch is an anomaly. I wish they'd routinely done asymptomatic testing as part of the Pfizer vaccine trials. We really need more data on this.
I hope Congressman Lynch is an anomaly. I wish they'd routinely done asymptomatic testing as part of the Pfizer vaccine trials. We really need more data on this.
I hope Congressman Lynch is an anomaly. I wish they'd routinely done asymptomatic testing as part of the Pfizer vaccine trials. We really need more data on this.
I hope Congressman Lynch is an anomaly. I wish they'd routinely done asymptomatic testing as part of the Pfizer vaccine trials. We really need more data on this.
Wondering if anyone can help point me in the direction of resources. My parents, but especially my dad, recently were very ill with Covid, my dad is now in an acute care long term hospital to rehab. He asked me last night if I knew on average how much more antibodies the vaccine gets your body to make vs someone like him who had a severe life threatening case of Covid (and who received antibodies via IV prior to being hospitalized). I would assume that varies by person so I'm thinking no one can exactly say right now, but does it also vary by which type of vaccine one gets, i.e. the J&J one once available vs the Pfizer or Moderna versions? He said the Dr at the hospital just said it would be a lot more antibodies but didn't share any other info. My parents are trying to plan for when they could get vaccinated and by which version. Their Dr. told them they should wait a few months due to having Covid recently so they're wondering if J&J might be out by then as well to consider. Thanks!
IV antibodies are passive and don't persist in the body - it's like @maternal antibodies that provide some protection for a couple of months. They are eventually chewed up and the proteins are recycled. Their only relevance is that sometimes the immune response to the vaccines can be blunted if you have high levels of antibodies that remove the vaccine antigens from circulation before the rest of the immune system has a chance to respond. That's one reason @infants and puppies get a series of booster vaccinations.
I don't think they can predict which vaccine will work "best" (because of the individual variation and antibody levels are also just the easiest way to measure an immune response - there's a T-cell response that is usually only measured in a smaller number of subjects). They also don't know how long protection lasts from either natural infection or any of the vaccines. They can ask their doctor, but it's probably best to just get whatever vaccine is available when their doctor says it is time. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
People also think that the snapshot of antibody levels in the body after vaccination or an infection corresponds to the future immune response if you get exposed/infected, but that's not really accurate. The main advantage to vaccines is not the existing antibody levels (because those fluctuate over time and there is constant turnover), but the speed and amplitude of the memory immune response vs the primary immune response. That's why the most important outcomes of the vaccine trials are not the antibody responses, but the prevention of severe disease, hospitalization, and death.
(I'm not an infectious disease expert, just a B cell immunologist.)
Thank you - I appreciate all of the details. My dad is really scared about next steps for him given what he's been through to survive having Covid so really appreciate any info I can help share with him about how it all works out.
I hope Congressman Lynch is an anomaly. I wish they'd routinely done asymptomatic testing as part of the Pfizer vaccine trials. We really need more data on this.
I’m glad that asymptomatic infections weren’t a primary endpoint. Do you think doing routine asymptomatic testing would’ve changed anything?
I know moderna did test people for covid before their 2nd injection, but I don’t think that was included as a primary endpoint (I do believe there were less positives in the vaccine arm, but don’t have the exact info in front of me).
I don’t think they cut any corners with how they built the trials. I think all the testing and follow up and monitoring they did for their primary endpoints was definitely a feat, especially within a year.
ETA: they did do lab work during trials as well to monitor.
This is a mishmash of topics, but covid related - Budweiser, Coke, and Pepsi will not air Super Bowl commercials. InBev is instead giving money to the Ad Council to run public service announcements about the covid vaccine. And then this:
Instead of running a Super Bowl spot, Budweiser is releasing a 90-second ad it intends to run on digital outlets, calling attention to moments during the pandemic when being together matters. The last few moments of the ad, narrated by Rashida Jones, suggest that getting the coronavirus vaccine represents one more way that people can help each other.