Posted on 01/29/2021 7:31:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Johnson & Johnson has released the results of its coronavirus vaccine. In short, it protects against COVID-19, but not as effectively as the two inoculations already approved by the FDA. Late-stage trials showed the Johnson & Johnson candidate to be 66 percent effective overall, and 85 percent effective against "severe" cases.
Johnson & Johnson said its late-stage trial in the U.S. and seven other countries showed an overall 66% effectiveness in its vaccine in preventing moderate to severe illness. It was also 85% effective against severe disease across all regions studied, the company said, and its effectiveness against severe disease increased over time with none of the vaccinated volunteers reporting severe disease more than 49 days after vaccination. (USA Today)
The first vaccine to be approved by the FDA from Pfizer-BioNTech was 95 percent effective in trials. Moderna's candidate was 94 percent effective in trials and received its FDA approval a few weeks later. Unlike the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna shots, which require two trips to the clinic, the Johnson & Johnson candidate requires only one dose. A second advantage is that it does not need to be kept frozen. Another vaccine being developed by Oxford/AstraZeneca has reported a 70 percent efficacy rate, but Germany has advised that individuals 65 years and older should avoid getting the shot.
Two other variants of COVID-19 have made their way to the U.S. in recent weeks. One is from the UK, which is reported to be 30 to 70 percent more transmittable and potentially 30 percent more lethal. Another variant, from South Africa, was reported in the U.S. for the first time in South Carolina on Thursday. Moderna released a statement this week with an assurance that their vaccine still protects against the new variants.
Can someone more up on the matter comment? Is it true that technically the two vaccines currently in use are not “approved”, but rather have been granted “emergency use authorizations” (EUAs)?
Data from the earlier vaccines comes from the manufacturers, based on just a couple dozen of actually significant Covid cases in their relatively short time of study.
Not as good of a number as the 90% that was discussed elsewhere recently, but apparently that 66% is just at a particular snapshot in time (by the design of the study), and immunity continues to grow after that.
The end state immunity might still be excellent. They say in the article that after 49 days, no participants got serious disease.
Flu vaccine is not that effective either, but public-health officials have no problem promoting it.
RE: Is it true that technically the two vaccines currently in use are not “approved”, but rather have been granted “emergency use authorizations” (EUAs)?
Yes, that’s true. But it’s now practically a distinction without a difference. With millions of vaccines already administered here and abroad, how is this NOT CONSIDERED APPROVED?
If it has been proven to NOT work, they can revoke the EUA, but how is that different from unapproving it?
It’s just playing with words.
Should be just fine for generally healthy people under 50 who want it. Give the other two to those 50 and above and those with health issues.
Screw this stupid bug
Double triple quadruple screw the stupid vaccines for the stupid bug
the stupid EXPERIMENTAL vaccines for the stupid bug
With millions of vaccines already administered here and abroad, how is this NOT CONSIDERED APPROVED?
A vaccine that is not able to pass the approval process is different from one that is able to pass the approval process.
Technically the two “ vaccines” in use are not “ vaccines” but are a largescale experiment in artificially reprogramming the human immune system
The JnJ vax is a traditional vax using a natural but altered adenovirus to stimulate the immune system ( ditto with Astrazenica/Oxford vax except the adenovirus is chimp, not human)
If forced to vax, this would be my reluctant choice
The efficacy of any of them long term is unknown
Using prophylactic protocol like VitD3, VitC, Zinc and quercetin should add to its effect
RE: A vaccine that is not able to pass the approval process is different from one that is able to pass the approval process.
And what is the purpose of passing the approval process? Isn’t it in order to be approved for use?
So, what do we call something that did not pass the complete approval process but was nevertheless approved for use? I call it De-Facto approved for use.
Just how many “cures” do we have for this fractional deadly virus anyway. Next we will find out that an apple a day will keep the virus away.
The hype is kept up because the little dictators want to retain their power, such as it is.
Well, if you want a preventative from death ( aside from an actual cure which might be from the ivermectin trifecta) the JnJ vax has good trial results of 100% no deaths and 86% less hospitalization
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9201625/J-J-1-dose-shot-prevents-COVID-19-others.html
I believe the term used is EUA
Emergency Use Authorization
These warp speed injections are not yet fully proven and thus are not FDA approved
What you wrote is very wise. Only 2% of deaths are below 50 years of age, but cutting them by 2/3rds would be great.
Plus many of them want to be vaccinated ASAP, so this will give them the chance, And it will make normal behvaior in society possible sooner.
btt
RE: These warp speed injections are not yet fully proven and thus are not FDA approved
Yes, I know, but they are already being injected into millions of people ( including heads of states ). They are IN EFFECT approved even if the FDA did not approve them.
By on rumor, sell on news?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.