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?
|
I don't know the exact answers, but
1. There is the consideration of effectiveness AND duration AND current situation. As I know it, the second shot is a booster for longevity that also increases immunity. Pair that with the current level of vaccination, and that the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines were tested with earlier variants, and it's better/necessary to have the second jab (if most/everyone's vaccinated and the vaccine works for most variants, 75% is fine...)
2. Given #1, it makes sense to offer/take the one-jab J&J because it can vaccinate twice as many people. So, a town with 40k people with 80% vaccinated at 75% effectiveness is safer than 40% of a town with 95%. Add in that J&J and Pfizer/Moderna may be closer to each other in effectiveness when including new variants, and J&J is a game-changer. I mean, it's half the shipping, storage, production, manpower, etc. costs, doesn't require crazy storage, and already has other manufacturers making it. I would be surprised if Pfizer/Moderna doesn't figure out a one-jab or that J&J becomes the only one.
Sent from my SM-G950U using
Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app