Posted on 02/24/2021 9:39:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Following a wave of trial results alternatively teasing, and questioning, the efficacy of the company’s vaccine – including the possibility that it might not be effective as a single-shot jab – new data from Johnson & Johnson purports to show the shot is surprisingly effective at preventing severe illness and reducing transmission in its current (single-dose) form.
An analysis of the company’s trial data by the FDA was released on Wednesday, two days before an FDA committee is expected to meet to discuss the safety and efficacy of the JNJ vaccine. According to the NYT, the jab could be approved for emergency use as early as Saturday morning (following the committee’s meeting and a possible vote on Friday).
The vaccine had a 72% overall efficacy rate in the US and 64% in South Africa, where a highly contagious variant emerged in the fall and is now driving most cases. Notably, the analysis showed the JNJ vaccine was seven percentage points more effective against the SA mutation than a prior dataset had suggested. The vaccine was also 86% effective against severe forms of COVID-19 in the US, and 82% against severe disease in South Africa. According to JNJ and the FDA, this means that a vaccinated person has a far lower risk of being hospitalized or dying from the virus.
The news essentially confirms that Americans will be the first to benefit from a third COVID vaccine as the pace of new cases, hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline.
What’s more, JNJ’s vaccine can be stored at normal refrigeration temperatures for at least three months, making its distribution considerably easier than the authorized vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, which require two doses and must be stored at frigid temperatures.
“With a J&J vaccine, we’ll be able to accelerate the vaccine rollout for our country and for the world,” said Dan Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He reportedly led much of the early research on the vaccine last year.
Although JNJ’s jab is less effective than the Moderna and Pfizer shots, when it comes to the South African variant, JNJ is the clear winner.
Another rival, the AstraZeneca-Oxford jab, was found that the jab didn’t offer much protection at all. The negative results led the South African government to abandon its plan of giving a million doses of AstraZeneca vaccines to health care workers.
Circling back to the JNJ jab, the newly released documents, which include the FDA’s first technical analysis of the company’s 45K-person clinical trial, included evidence that the vaccine was safe, with noticeably milder side effects than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and without any reports of severe allergic reactions like anaphylaxis.
The vaccine’s protection was consistent across Black, Hispanic and white participants, and also across various age groups. The trial indicated a lower efficacy, of 42.3 percent, for people over 60 who had risk factors like heart disease or diabetes. Johnson & Johnson looked for asymptomatic infections by checking for coronavirus antibodies 71 days after volunteers got a vaccine or a placebo. The new analyses estimate that the vaccine has an efficacy rate of 74 percent against asymptomatic infections.
JNJ execs have promised to get their shot into the arms of at least 20M Americans by the end of next month. The New Jersey-based company has promised to deliver more than 100M doses by the end of June.
I’m not a virologist, nor do I play one on TV, but 72% effectiveness doesn’t seem that spectacular.
A drug company announces that their drug works really well.
I guess it’s gotta be true.
So they’re touting something that’s 72% effective for an illness that humans can fight off better than 99% of the time? Nice racket they have going on there.
Headline is wrong, the article says between 82-86% preventing severe disease (South Africa 82, U.S. 86)
“Surprisingly effective.”
That just cultivates all KINDS of confidence in this process.
RE: A drug company announces that their drug works really well. I guess it’s gotta be true.
The FDA concurs
SOURCE: https://finance.yahoo.com/video/j-j-single-shot-covid-145112182.html
On Wednesday, the Food and Drug Administration backed Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose coronavirus vaccine as safe and effective, supporting its authorization for emergency use.
And exactly what were the results and side effects of the other 26%?
I've gotten better estimates from auto repair guys. And the less than estimated 50% efficacy rate for those over 60 at risk doesn't exactly inspire confidence....and as for long term effects, guess they'll burn that bridge when they come to it...oh wait...don't they have 100% immunity from law suits already?
I probably wouldn't fight to be in the front of the line for this one.
Yes. Another totally trust worthy organization. /S
Did the FDA bureaucrat later leave the FDA for a job at Johnnson & Johnson like so many do?
Sounds like a nice little recipe for cancer growth.
“100% effective against severe disease and hospitilization/dying)
same as Moderna/Pfizer
that’s all that really matters
So a typical flu vacc is 35% effective, this is just over 70%. By the time June comes there will hardly be any new cases. The pandemic will be over.
More than 1 in 4 shots are ineffective. Not very reassuring.
I guess I’ll get all three vaccines and wait for more. /s
Special Report: As Baby Powder concerns mounted, J&J focused marketing on minority, overweight women
It's a hard pass from me.
except a DNA vaccine like the J&J vaccine actually does pose a risk to the chromosome and J&J has a history of ignoring health risks to make a buck.
I was hoping J&J would be the better option except I am over 60 and the percentage of lessening illness is less than 50%...
Sounds like Pfizer is the better vaccine to me. Hopefully they will start vaccinating people between 50-65.
The over 60 have a 94% ch a nice of surviving without the vaccine, so an I crease in 45% for the remaining g % will make it just that much more survivable. 45% reduction In Hospitalizations in the remaining 6% [that is from the 94% without vaccine] so it just about cuts that in half. Meaning I guess that only 3% will die instead of the 6%
Unless I’m figuring it wrong?
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.