[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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.

It’s all statistics.

You are implying J&J is inferior by looking at 1 parameter among dozens.

What if J&J was 80%, but Moderna was 70% on first shot but you were exposed before you got the 2nd shot? Which is better. Time matters a lot here.

What are the chances that a J&J is mishandled vs a Moderna (either shot)?

J&J was tested against newer strains compared to earlier vaccines.

J&J wasn’t 100% effective of preventing symptoms, but was 100% effective preventing hospitalization or death and that includes newer strains.

J&J is so good it didn’t need a booster.

J&J has less side effects. And side effects are worse after the 2nd shot. And for some those side affects are pretty harsh.

We don’t know how long the effectiveness is of any vaccine.

We don’t know how good any are against transmission.

We don’t know what the possible long term side effects are of any.

If you could fully vaccinate everyone in half the time (half the shots) and more likely reach everyone because J&J does not need such extreme handling which is society better off with?

If more people get vaccinated sooner over a wider area the odds are better you won’t get exposed to someone not vaccinated. In fact that’s what the UK exactly did. They only gave ONE shot of the early two shot vaccine so they could get more people vaccinated sooner. They were in much worse shape than USA. Now they are in much better shape and much better trends (much lower numbers and headed sharply down).

J&J is the winner here. But the other two are also winners because time is so critical and they were available months sooner.