Vaccination free for-all

[TexasHusker]

The other thing to consider with the J&J's 70%-ish efficacy is that's entirely normal for many vaccines. No vaccine is 100%, and many aren't 90%. The bottom-line standard for approval is "safe and effective," which J&J satisfies. The fact that it's less effective than others is fine. It remains a valuable tool, especially for places that can't handle the storage requirements of the mRNA vaccines.

No doubt about that. But forget trying to convince people to get a second Moderna or Pfizer shot when efficacy after 1 shot is as good or better than J&J. The CDC and FDA kissed that notion goodbye on approval of J&J.

[disneysteve]

The other thing to consider with the J&J's 70%-ish efficacy is that's entirely normal for many vaccines. No vaccine is 100%, and many aren't 90%. The bottom-line standard for approval is "safe and effective," which J&J satisfies. The fact that it's less effective than others is fine. It remains a valuable tool, especially for places that can't handle the storage requirements of the mRNA vaccines.

The J&J shot is really the one that’s going to do the most good and reach the most people. It’s already being given in doctors’ offices all around which the other two can’t do.

For the same reason it should be big in other countries with weaker infrastructure.

[kork13]

Well, the two-dose varieties are showing to be 80+ percent effective after one shot, which is in the same realm as one shot from J&J. I can see why people are asking "why" they should get a second shot. I never understood why J&J was granted approval in the U.S. to begin with. It's efficacy was clearly inferior to Moderna and Pfizer. All the J&J shot did was screw this whole thing up, especially after the pause. All of this bully pulpit from the CDC "remember to get your second shot!" after they approved J&J, give me a break.

The other thing to consider with the J&J's 70%-ish efficacy is that's entirely normal for many vaccines. No vaccine is 100%, and many aren't 90%. The bottom-line standard for approval is "safe and effective," which J&J satisfies. The fact that it's less effective than others is fine. It remains a valuable tool, especially for places that can't handle the storage requirements of the mRNA vaccines.

[TexasHusker]

Your stomach acid breaks down the vaccine before it gets absorbed into your body - thats the problem.

Yes I doubled up just to be on the safe side.

[james.hendrickson]

Why don't you just get a syringe, shoot the vaccine in some bourbon, and drink it. Same difference. You'll feel a lot better quicker too.

Your stomach acid breaks down the vaccine before it gets absorbed into your body - thats the problem.

[TexasHusker]

Well the only comment I have here - is its too bad that there isn't a good commercially available vaccine delivery solution that would let people eat the vaccine in say...candy or a beverage. If you had that, then you could market a product that would help prevent you from getting covid. Like, say original coke with covid 19 protection, or a multivitamin with covid-19 protection, or Doritos chips with covid -19 protection. That would probably sell well, and would address a lot of the public concern about getting vaccinated.

Why don't you just get a syringe, shoot the vaccine in some bourbon, and drink it. Same difference. You'll feel a lot better quicker too.

[james.hendrickson]

Well the only comment I have here - is its too bad that there isn't a good commercially available vaccine delivery solution that would let people eat the vaccine in say...candy or a beverage. If you had that, then you could market a product that would help prevent you from getting covid. Like, say original coke with covid 19 protection, or a multivitamin with covid-19 protection, or Doritos chips with covid -19 protection. That would probably sell well, and would address a lot of the public concern about getting vaccinated.

[rennigade]

Just remember, DARPA oversaw/funded big pharma to create these mRNA vaccines. Tread with caution. Tin foil hat engaged.

[ua_guy]

Well, the two-dose varieties are showing to be 80+ percent effective after one shot, which is in the same realm as one shot from J&J. I can see why people are asking "why" they should get a second shot. I never understood why J&J was granted approval in the U.S. to begin with. It's efficacy was clearly inferior to Moderna and Pfizer. All the J&J shot did was screw this whole thing up, especially after the pause. All of this bully pulpit from the CDC "remember to get your second shot!" after they approved J&J, give me a break.

The J&J didn't have the transport/refrigeration issues that Pfizer first had, so it was a critical piece of the initial supply and rollout. It's efficacy is less than pfizer/moderna at this point, but in a single shot that reduces severe complications by almost 100% if you get sick, is pretty dang good.

Also, mRNA vaccines like Pfizer/Moderna are new. Understandably, some people are concerned about haste in developing it, or any possible longer-term effects. J&J/Janssen is developed using older, more common technology, so can be a good alternative to someone who isn't so sure about mRNA vaccines.

[TexasHusker]

The gap between doses doesn’t seem to be any problem. Other countries are only giving first doses and not scheduling second doses at all. Canada is doing that.

Well, the two-dose varieties are showing to be 80+ percent effective after one shot, which is in the same realm as one shot from J&J. I can see why people are asking "why" they should get a second shot. I never understood why J&J was granted approval in the U.S. to begin with. It's efficacy was clearly inferior to Moderna and Pfizer. All the J&J shot did was screw this whole thing up, especially after the pause. All of this bully pulpit from the CDC "remember to get your second shot!" after they approved J&J, give me a break.

[disneysteve]

The gap between doses doesn’t seem to be any problem. Other countries are only giving first doses and not scheduling second doses at all. Canada is doing that.

[QuarterMillionMan]

MLK hospital today called me asking why I never showed up for my 2nd shot of Pfizer. I explained that after my 1st shot the check-out lady who was sitting in front of a computer insisted that I didn't need an appt for my 2nd shot and told me just return for my 2nd shot even though I insisted that I would need an appt for my 2nd shot. That was in March when appointments were necessary at the time (no walk-ins). Anyway I explained to the caller today that my work was able to locate another facility where I took the 2nd shot. Vaccinations must be way down for MLK hospital to follow up with me and inquire why I never took their 2nd shot. But it is good that they want to make sure I get my 2nd shot. It got me thinking though if my 1st shot was on March 2, and my 2nd shot was taken today on May 10, would my vaccination still be effective with that long of an interval between 1st and 2nd dose? I guess late is better than only one dose.

[disneysteve]

Will we have to take the COVID vaccine every year for the rest of our lives much like the flu vaccine every year (except those who choose not to get it)?

Possibly. it's too soon to know how often a booster will be needed.

Why is it that we don't have to take the 1918 Spanish flu vaccine?

You do, as noted above. That was an H1N1 flu virus which is a common subset of flu viruses, so the annual flu shot you get protects you against it.

[ua_guy]

Will we have to take the COVID vaccine every year for the rest of our lives much like the flu vaccine every year (except those who choose not to get it)?

Why is it that we don't have to take the 1918 Spanish flu vaccine?

From the CDC:

Are current antivirals and vaccines effective against the 1918 H1N1 virus?


Yes. Oseltamivir (Tamiflu® or generic), has been shown to be effective against similar influenza A(H1N1) viruses and is expected to be effective against the 1918 H1N1 virus. Other antivirals (zanamivir, peramivir and baloxavir) have not been tested against this specific virus but are expected to also be effective. Vaccines containing the 1918 HA or other subtype H1 HA proteins were effective in protecting mice against the 1918 H1N1 virus. Vaccination with current seasonal influenza vaccines is expected to provide some protection in humans since seasonal influenza vaccines provided some level of protection against the 1918 H1N1 virus in mice.

[QuarterMillionMan]

Will we have to take the COVID vaccine every year for the rest of our lives much like the flu vaccine every year (except those who choose not to get it)?

Why is it that we don't have to take the 1918 Spanish flu vaccine?