Quote:
Originally Posted by SailinAway
QUESTIONS
(1) I heard that with the Pfizer vaccine you're 80% protected within two weeks after the first shot and 95% after the second one. Johnson and Johnson is 75% protection with only one shot needed. If J&J is considered to provide enough protection, then why is a second shot of Pfizer needed?
(2) Officials were pushing J&J, saying that 75% protection is fine and you should get J&J if it's offered to you. BUT: One of the arguments for wearing a mask after you're vaccinated is that the vaccine isn't 100% protective. Doesn't that mean that Pfizer and Moderna (95% protection after second dose) IS actually more effective than J&J?
|
This is a complex question with answers based on your viewpoint. What is good for the whole population vs. the individual. The cost of the vaccine's failure. WHO is giving the advice.
I will give my opinion, for what it is worth.
Consider the risk of failure of the vaccine. COVID can be fatal across ALL age brackets. COVID can also be permanently debilitating in many ways. There was a news article about a person who required a double lung and kidney transplant after COVID. Some might consider the loss of taste and smell as trivial but when it becomes permanent, that is a different matter. There are various problems across the spectrum of the population from minor to catastrophic.
Given the above, OF COURSE 95% protection is better than 75%. Consider a rounded US population of 300 million. 5% failure of a vaccine exposes 15 million people. 25% failure exposes 60 million, an ADDITIONAL 45 MILLION. I would consider that significant and important. NO, it does NOT mean that 45 million WILL get sick or will be at risk for serious illness but more at risk means more will get sick and some of those significantly ill.
In addition, many vaccines fade in effectiveness over time. 95% may fade to 80%. 75% to 60%. It is likely that starting higher means it will last longer as well, although I don't think they have long term test results yet.
As an individual, I want the best protection I can get. Again, 95% is better than 75%. If I could get either one, I would choose 95%. The problem is, there are not enough 95% effective vaccines to pass out to everyone right now. So, an individual may not have a choice.
"Officials were pushing J&J." OF COURSE they are. First, it is being defined as "success" if everyone is vaccinated, even with a less effective vaccine. An alternative approach would be to offer J & J to younger people who might not qualify for a 95% vaccine for a few more months; just to get them vaccinated. Since the younger population is also the one that tends to be more co-mingled with others, this might be a good individual choice. HOWEVER, the government is controlling the vaccine and THEY are all about EQUITY. So, a less effective vaccine is pushed on EVERYONE, even if it isn't a medically sound approach. You don't get a choice unless you decline the vaccine all together. Now the problem of the "less effectiveness" is equitably distributed among all who are waiting for vaccinations, even those who are more likely to get sick and have more severe symptoms.
I can say that I was VERY pleased to find my wife and I were getting Moderna. I would have probably accepted J & J because I am older and have medical problems and some protection is better than none. But, I would NOT have been happy and I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A CHOICE.
As I said, my perspective. I'm sure that 40 year olds forced to accept J & J would probably not be too happy about it. Now we are all subject to the luck of the distribution even though I would have been at much higher risk for getting COVID and having significant illness from it.