J&J vaccine reduces chance of getting Covid-19 infection by half - SA study

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
26,907
Good points, but compared to Pfizer at 90%+, it's not as protective. I'm still saying its a great vaccine. Maybe they need a second dose..
I think the indication here is that a single dose of J+J is better than a single dose of Pfizer. Also J+J doesn't expire as quickly and doesn't need cold storage (I think)

So the point I think - is that in countries where there is a high chance of people not getting their second jab and storage is a problem (Like the 3rd world) then j+j is actually a better option.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
I think the indication here is that a single dose of J+J is better than a single dose of Pfizer. Also J+J doesn't expire as quickly and doesn't need cold storage (I think)

So the point I think - is that in countries where there is a high chance of people not getting their second jab and storage is a problem (Like the 3rd world) then j+j is actually a better option.
Is more practical and easier for the authorities to manage and administer. None of this has any bearing on which version of saltwater is better.
 

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
83,164
On this forum, I would hope 0.4 at least includes the brain of some of the morons on this thread.
Some might argue you're being unnecessarily harsh on the "vaccine hesitant".
 

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,889
Is more practical and easier for the authorities to manage and administer. None of this has any bearing on which version of saltwater is better.
Are you comparing the vaccines to saline?
 

Gaz{M}

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
6,941
Thats NOT what 70% effective means!

Say there were 1000.people who got COVID and they werent vaccinated then say 99% of them are fine... So 10 if them end up in hospital and 5 of then die.

With a vaccine that is 70% effective only 3 end up in hospital and basically 1 or 0 die...

Come on now, spend some time to understand the numbers.

Its like saying this car is 50% faster than this one.
"Duh, it only goes 50 kmph... What a crap car".
50% is not the same as 50 kmph!?
Take a group of 1000 people unvaccinated that test positive, so 15% of unvaccinated are hospitalized: 150 people.

Now, let's say the vaccine is 50% protective against infection, so that means of 1000 people exposed, only 500 "test positive". 500 people.

Now 70% of the hospitalizations will be 150 unvaccinated. ie: 70% = 150 people, so 30% = 64 vaccinated in hospital.

so 64/1000 = 6.4% of vaccinated people end up in hospital.

Is that now correct?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
Some might argue you're being unnecessarily harsh on the "vaccine hesitant".
It cuts both ways.
Leave people alone. Provide them with the information and let them decide. It is their decision either way.
On the contrary, the barb is aimed at those trying to over play the antivax angle by branding all those that are hesitant as being antivax.
Not everyone is antivax. It is a small minority. Rather listen to the concerns of the hesitant, acknowledge them and address their questions with factual information.
Then they will be able to take informed decisions.
 

AstroTurf

Lucky Shot
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
28,519
I'd be interested to see results from a study on how the Pfizer vaccine reduces infection probability in SA, seeing as we extend the period between doses to six weeks. Much of the world has given the second dose in three weeks and a study has found eight weeks to be quite optimal. Perhaps a greater prevention rate with Pfizer in SA perhaps?
All I can find.


In South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent and 800 participants were enrolled, nine cases of COVID-19 were observed, all in the placebo group, indicating vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, [53.5, 100.0]). In an exploratory analysis, the nine strains were sequenced and six of the nine were confirmed to be of the B.1.351 lineage. These data support previous results from immunogenicity studies demonstrating that BNT162b2 induced a robust neutralizing antibody response to the B1.351 variant, and although lower than to the wild-type strain, it does not appear to affect the high observed efficacy against this variant.i
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
38,452
Take a group of 1000 people unvaccinated that test positive, so 15% of unvaccinated are hospitalized: 150 people.

Now, let's say the vaccine is 50% protective against infection, so that means of 1000 people exposed, only 500 "test positive". 500 people.

Now 70% of the hospitalizations will be 150 unvaccinated. ie: 70% = 150 people, so 30% = 64 vaccinated in hospital.

so 64/1000 = 6.4% of vaccinated people end up in hospital.

Is that now correct?
Nope still not correct you're mixing vaxxed and unvaxxed numbers together.
Lets work your numbers but even that isn't right as even if 1000 are exposed it would never be 50% out of that who would actually get it either, it would probably be 25% or a bit more but anyway.
So if you're working on the 500 getting it remembering that out of that 500 only 10% would ever really need hospital in the first place so now we're down to 50 people who go to hospital, but with the vaccine that 10% would now actually be 3% so instead of 50 people ending in hospital it would be 15. so 1,5%
 

lumeer

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,889
Take a group of 1000 people unvaccinated that test positive, so 15% of unvaccinated are hospitalized: 150 people.

Now, let's say the vaccine is 50% protective against infection, so that means of 1000 people exposed, only 500 "test positive". 500 people.

Now 70% of the hospitalizations will be 150 unvaccinated. ie: 70% = 150 people, so 30% = 64 vaccinated in hospital.

so 64/1000 = 6.4% of vaccinated people end up in hospital.

Is that now correct?
Using your example, the number of hospitalised vaccinated would be 0.3 x 150 = 45 people.
 

Insint

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,427
It cuts both ways.
Leave people alone. Provide them with the information and let them decide. It is their decision either way.
On the contrary, the barb is aimed at those trying to over play the antivax angle by branding all those that are hesitant as being antivax.
Not everyone is antivax. It is a small minority. Rather listen to the concerns of the hesitant, acknowledge them and address their questions with factual information.
Then they will be able to take informed decisions.

I don't agree with this. History has shown that wearing a safety belt in a car reduces the risk of death. This is why people are forced to wear a safety belt.

The same can be said for why second story buildings have guard rails, near edges. It's all reducing the risk of death.

Studies are showing that the vaccine is reducing the risk of death. With that, it's clear that people should get vaccinated.

I don't even understand why this is being debated... There are literally millions of examples where laws are put in place to reduce the risk of death.

Let's remove all the things the stupid people have put in place to help prevent death.
Remove all gaurd rails from buildings.
Remove all safety lines when working on buildings.
Remove those pesky covers for the electric cables. Who needs those. I can connect the wires myself.
Remove the safety glass from cars and buildings, it's fine if sharp peaces flies everywhere.

The list can go on and on.

For some reason covid should have special treatment... It's litterally a complete waste of time.

The vaccine reduces the risk of death, get the vaccine. When a booster shot comes out and does a better job get the booster shot.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,658
I don't agree with this. History has shown that wearing a safety belt in a car reduces the risk of death. This is why people are forced to wear a safety belt.

The same can be said for why second story buildings have guard rails, near edges. It's all reducing the risk of death.

Studies are showing that the vaccine is reducing the risk of death. With that, it's clear that people should get vaccinated.

I don't even understand why this is being debated... There are literally millions of examples where laws are put in place to reduce the risk of death.

Let's remove all the things the stupid people have put in place to help prevent death.
Remove all gaurd rails from buildings.
Remove all safety lines when working on buildings.
Remove those pesky covers for the electric cables. Who needs those. I can connect the wires myself.
Remove the safety glass from cars and buildings, it's fine if sharp peaces flies everywhere.

The list can go on and on.

For some reason covid should have special treatment... It's litterally a complete waste of time.

The vaccine reduces the risk of death, get the vaccine. When a booster shot comes out and does a better job get the booster shot.
The difference is simple. All those examples you quote DO NOT infringe on our own bodies even if they do dictate certain restrictions on other liberties.
This one violates a provision in our Constitution.
 
Last edited:

Brian_G

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
6,785
I don't agree with this. History has shown that wearing a safety belt in a car reduces the risk of death. This is why people are forced to wear a safety belt.

The same can be said for why second story buildings have guard rails, near edges. It's all reducing the risk of death.

Studies are showing that the vaccine is reducing the risk of death. With that, it's clear that people should get vaccinated.

I don't even understand why this is being debated... There are literally millions of examples where laws are put in place to reduce the risk of death.

Let's remove all the things the stupid people have put in place to help prevent death.
Remove all gaurd rails from buildings.
Remove all safety lines when working on buildings.
Remove those pesky covers for the electric cables. Who needs those. I can connect the wires myself.
Remove the safety glass from cars and buildings, it's fine if sharp peaces flies everywhere.

The list can go on and on.

For some reason covid should have special treatment... It's litterally a complete waste of time.

The vaccine reduces the risk of death, get the vaccine. When a booster shot comes out and does a better job get the booster shot.
One other main reason why not - it's not an extreme emergency, not nearly enough dead ratio-wise to require the fuss going on. Sounds like a big pharma con to me, so no thanks. Ever.
 

Insint

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,427
Great news... now all those fat ****s can forget about lifestyle changes :cool:

I have to agree with you. It does not make sense that the covid vaccine should be mandatory but the fat ****s can live the way they want.

There should be regulations and fines for fat ****s too. I am also a fat f****r. Actually, I was losing a good amount of weight each month and then the bloody lockdown came into effect. I hate covid.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
26,907
Some might argue you're being unnecessarily harsh on the "vaccine hesitant".
No Geoff has flipped over to the dark side... he is implying that people taking a covid vaccine are idiots.
 

Insint

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,427
One other main reason why not - it's not an extreme emergency, not nearly enough dead ratio-wise to require the fuss going on. Sounds like a big pharma con to me, so no thanks. Ever.

I can say that a lot of regulations exist for a small percentage of people dying.

@ShaunSA makes an excellent point. Why are people not making regulations for fat people? Probably because they are more often using drugs to keep them alive and this means money for the rich.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
26,907
It cuts both ways.
Leave people alone. Provide them with the information and let them decide. It is their decision either way.
On the contrary, the barb is aimed at those trying to over play the antivax angle by branding all those that are hesitant as being antivax.
Not everyone is antivax. It is a small minority. Rather listen to the concerns of the hesitant, acknowledge them and address their questions with factual information.
Then they will be able to take informed decisions.
Consider this... most people in this country are voting for the likes of Jacob Zuma and Julius Malema.
 
Top