The Differences Between the Vaccines Matter

[Celerity]

Yes, all of the COVID-19 vaccines are very good. No, they’re not all the same.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/pfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson-vaccines-compared/618226/



Public-health officials are enthusiastic about the new, single-shot COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson, despite its having a somewhat lower efficacy at preventing symptomatic illness than other available options. Although clinical-trial data peg that rate at 72 percent in the United States, compared with 94 and 95 percent for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, many experts say we shouldn’t fixate on those numbers. Much more germane, they say, is the fact that the Johnson & Johnson shot, like the other two, is essentially perfect when it comes to preventing the gravest outcomes. “I’m super-pumped about this,” Virginia’s vaccine coordinator told The New York Times last weekend. “A hundred percent efficacy against deaths and hospitalizations? That’s all I need to hear.”

The same glowing message—that the COVID-19 vaccines are all equivalent, at least where it really counts—has been getting public-health officials and pundits super-pumped for weeks now. Its potential value for promoting vaccination couldn’t be more clear: We’ll all be better off, and this nightmare will be over sooner, if people know that the best vaccine of all is whichever one they can get the soonest. With that in mind, Vox has urged its readers to attend to “the most important vaccine statistic”—the fact that “there have been zero cases of hospitalization or death in clinical trials for all of these vaccines.” The physician and CNN medical analyst Leana Wen also made a point of noting that “all of the vaccines are essentially a hundred percent” in this regard. And half a dozen former members of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote in USA Today, “Varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all 100% effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalizations and death.”

There’s a problem here. It’s certainly true that all three of the FDA-authorized vaccines are very good—amazing, even—at protecting people’s health. No one should refrain from seeking vaccination on the theory that any might be second-rate. But it’s also true that the COVID-19 vaccines aren’t all the same: Some are more effective than others at preventing illness, for example; some cause fewer adverse reactions; some are more convenient; some were made using more familiar methods and technologies. As for the claim that the vaccines have proved perfectly and equally effective at preventing hospitalization and death? It’s just not right. These differences among the options could matter quite a bit, in different ways to different people, and they should not be minimized or covered over. Especially not now: Vaccine supplies in the U.S. will soon surpass demand, even as more contagious viral variants spread throughout the country. In the meantime, governors are revoking their rules on face masks, or taking other steps to loosen their restrictions. It’s tempting to believe that a simple, decisive message—even one that verges on hype—is what’s most needed at this crucial moment. But if the message could be wrong, that has consequences.

The idea that all of the vaccines are pretty much the same, in that they’re perfect at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations and death, got its legs on social media. The USA Today op-ed by the former members of the Biden team illustrated this by linking to a data table found on Twitter. Created by the infectious-disease doctor Monica Gandhi, it showed a variety of trial results for six different vaccines. One column was rendered in canary yellow—“Protection from hospitalizations/death”—and every cell read “100%.” A similar table, tweeted out a few days earlier by the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, Ashish Jha, conveyed the same idea through a grid of zeros—as in, zero people hospitalized, zero people dead. The prominent physician and researcher Eric Topol followed with his own clinical-trial data summary featuring a column of 100 percents. “That is impressive!” he wrote across the top. All told, their posts would be retweeted about 15,000 times. The data were indeed suggestive of an encouraging idea. Based on the numbers so far, we can expect the vaccines to provide extremely high levels of protection against the most dire outcomes. Still, we don’t know how high—and it’s clear they won’t uniformly cause hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 to disappear in vaccinated people.

snip

[FBaggins]

1. Mostly true... but also misleading

There are differences... but the final answer is that few people (if any at all) should reject whichever one is available to them first... and all three should be produced as rapidly as possible.

[Yeehah]

53. That's precisely what the article states

"No one should refrain from seeking vaccination on the theory that any might be second-rate."

[FBaggins]

62. Wouldn't be the first time a title was contradicted by the body of the article

The editors who usually write the titles don't always understand (or even necessarily read) the reporting that they're titling.

There are, in fact, "differences" between the vaccine options... but (for the average reader), they do not "matter"... despite the title.

[brush]

2. It was reported this morning that an Indian vaccine was...

coming soon which can be stored at room temperature.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. K&R. "The one that you can get the soonest" - works for me!

Got my first Moderna vaccine shot 10 days ago, scheduled for #2 at the end of the month - and I'm grateful!

[Ms. Toad]

4. All three vaccines are available. There is no reason not to evaluate the differences

and sign up for the one you prefer.

I said, in advance, I was going to do that - and was ridiculed, told I was stupid not to take the first one "offered" - as if there are people running around offering to stick needles in your arm, told it was impossible to choose, etc.

Eligibility opened up for me on Thursday. On Saturday (two days later) I got my first vaccination, of Pfizer - as I indicated was my first choice.

There are reasons to take (or not take) each of the three. Since most places you have to affirmatively seek out an appointment, there is no reason not to do research and at least start your search with the administration sites offering thd vaccine that is best for you.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. I agree. Think they are making it murky due to the logistical

nightmare if people got to pick?

But here's a question I haven't heard addressed. J&J,. 72% effective. So 28% chance you could get a milder case of Covid, right? So you are "safe" but how does that translate to others? Say you got J&J, contract a mild case and are around grandma
The mildness isn't translated to her right? She could get it and it could be fatal?

[Ms. Toad]

39. That's all the data shows, so far.

All 3 vaccines were tested to determine if they were effective against the worst personal endpoints. Not whehter they prevented acquiring the disease, or whether they prevented transmission.

There is some data now that the mRNA vaccines prevent acquiring the disease (not just preventing the worst outcomes of the disease). If it prevents acquiring the disease, it will almost certainly prevent most transmission since much of the transmisson is by people who have the disease but are asymptomatic (A Typhoid Mary scenario is likely the exception, rather than the rule).

Johnson & Johnson works by a different mechanism. Instead of injecting the mRNA, it injects RNA that teaches your body to make the mRNA (which teaches your body to make the antibodies). I assume that adding the extra step won't impact how the antibodies work, once your body uses the RNA to make the mRNA to create antibodies. But that's just a guess. There is just no data yet that I have seen on the RNA form of the vaccine.

(And - given that a ton of people have died or had very severe cases of the disease which they acquired from people who had no symptoms at all, the severity of the disease in patient zero does not seem to translate to the severity of disease in anyone to whom they transmit it.)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

50. Ok my question was written in layman's terms and your answer

in scientist's terms. Carry on, you braniacs

[PJMcK]

5. What the hell?!

Get whatever vaccine you can as soon as you can!

Anything else is just stupid.

[Celerity]

6. Please read the whole article to fully grasp what is being said.

The real meat of it is later on, but DU copyright rules prevent me feom posting the whole thing.

[littlemissmartypants]

14. You can edit your original post by removing some content like a paragraph, inserting an

Indication of that in its place like "..." or "snip" and then post the more relevant content.

You can also post more bits of the article by posting more content in the thread as a reply to your own OP.

❤miss pants

[Celerity]

15. here are more excerpts, I rarely post an OP that starts in the middle, I also highly recco subbing

to The Atlantic, it is producing some of the best longer form US journo work out there atm.



Still, the message of perfection that their initial tables and tweets spawned—the gist, for many readers, of all those 100s and zeros—has since been picked up far and wide, and misinterpreted along the way. To grasp the shaky nature of these particular data, it’s important to remember how the vaccine-development process began. Last April, not long after the pandemic began, the World Health Organization set out a target efficacy for vaccines of 50 percent, with options for how that value should be measured. A vaccine could be shown to reduce the risk of symptomatic disease, severe disease, or transmission of the coronavirus. The FDA offered similar guidance in June, and other regulatory agencies also followed the WHO’s lead. Among these choices, symptomatic disease was the most feasible, because it’s both a common outcome and one that’s easier to confirm in a large-scale trial. An outcome that included asymptomatic infections would have been even more common, but screening for all infections would have been prohibitive, especially early in the pandemic. So that’s how the vaccine trials were designed: Each would try to demonstrate at least 50 percent efficacy with respect to symptomatic disease as its “primary outcome.”

The trials could have used severe disease, hospitalization, or death as primary outcomes, but that would have slowed things down. These events are far more infrequent—there could have been 200 infections for each COVID-19 death in the U.S.—and that means it would have taken more time, and larger numbers of trial participants, to generate enough data to be sure of a 50 percent efficacy. Developers did include “severe COVID-19” as a secondary outcome—that is, one that would be measured and analyzed, but for which the trial might not have been designed to provide a definitive answer. Efficacy against hospitalization and against death, however, were not included as secondary outcomes for every trial. Given that fact, the data can’t support a claim that the vaccines are 100 percent effective at preventing these serious outcomes. (Topol highlighted this very issue in an op-ed last fall for The New York Times.) Out of the six vaccines included in the dramatic data tables that made the rounds on Twitter, the clinical trials for only two of them—Oxford-AstraZeneca’s and Johnson & Johnson’s—included hospitalization for COVID-19 as a secondary outcome, and reported that efficacy rate. The clinical research for one other vaccine, made by Novavax, had hospitalization as a secondary outcome, but that trial hasn’t been reported in full yet. (On my website, I’ve provided more detailed information and analysis of the relevant data.)

Now, a casual reader of clinical-trial reports—or their summaries on social media—might take the fact that no hospitalizations of vaccinated people are mentioned to mean that none occurred. That’s risky, given that pieces of the data have been published across various medical journals and via several different regulatory agencies rather than in full in one place; that the plans for some trials did not specify ahead of time that the vaccine’s efficacy at preventing hospitalizations would be calculated; and that we’ve seen only minimal early data (via a press release from Novavax) from one of them. It would be just as risky to assume that all hospitalizations would be included in the analyses of people who developed severe COVID-19. Hospitalization and severe disease are not synonymous—people could be coping at home even though COVID-19 has caused their oxygen levels to drop severely, and moderately ill people might be hospitalized out of an abundance of caution when they are at high risk of getting worse. The two vaccine trials that did explicitly report hospitalizations as an efficacy outcome make this latter issue very clear. For the AstraZeneca vaccine, one person in the control group had severe COVID-19, but eight people were hospitalized; for Johnson & Johnson, 34 people in the placebo group had severe COVID-19, but only five people were hospitalized. It’s true that zero vaccinated people were hospitalized in either study after the vaccines took effect. But with numbers that small, you can’t draw a reliable conclusion about how high efficacy may be for these outcomes.

As Diana Zuckerman of the National Center for Health Research pointed out about the Johnson & Johnson trial, “It’s misleading to tell the public that nobody who was vaccinated was hospitalized unless you also tell them that only 5 people in the placebo group were hospitalized.” She’s right. And you can’t be confident about predicting effectiveness precisely in a wider population outside the trial, either. For example, some of the vaccine trials included relatively few people older than 60 as participants. You can see how fragile these numbers are by looking at those compiled for severe disease. In the Pfizer trial, for example, just one vaccinated person developed severe COVID-19 versus three in the placebo group—which meant that a single bout of disease made the difference between a calculated efficacy rate of 66 percent and one of 100 percent. For the Novavax and Oxford-AstraZeneca trials, there were zero people with severe disease in the vaccinated group versus only one in the control group, so adding or subtracting one would have been even more dramatic. The problem is even greater for deaths. For that efficacy analysis, only two of the vaccine trials—for Moderna’s and Johnson & Johnson’s—reported any COVID-19 deaths at all in the control groups. It’s also important to remember that these are early results: Some people who enrolled very late in the trials aren’t yet included in reported data, and analysis is still under way. Indeed, the FDA pointed out in December that one vaccinated person in the Moderna trial had been hospitalized with apparently severe COVID-19 two months after receiving a second dose. That person was in a group still awaiting final assessment by the researchers, and was not mentioned in Moderna’s formal readout of results.

snip

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Thanks! I am curious about the last part of this sentence

A vaccine could be shown to reduce the risk of symptomatic disease, severe disease, or transmission of the coronavirus.
[/div

Does this just mean a vaccinated person won't likely get the virus so lessens transmission risk? What if a vaccinated person DOES get the virus?

[Celerity]

38. last I saw from Fauci and others was that the data is not in if the vaccines completely stop

transmission, so no way to make that call yet.

And yes, many vaccinated people will get the virus, both the original strain and even more so the variants. That is why the efficacy rates are not 100%.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Yes, have since found out that is true. A vaccinated person

can carry the virus. Which makes me think that if you care about others near you who haven't gotten vaccinated, you'd go with the highest efficacy vaccine.

[Celerity]

51. The problem with that is determining which is the highest.

For example, Moderna is so far, over here, doing worse than Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer against the variants. So is the AstraZeneca vaccine.

People saw Moderna at 94-95% efficacy (that alone shows 5-6% get the original virus even though they were vaccinated) and assumed that it was going to be the same %, or at least better than J&J gainst the variants, qhich is not the case in some of the newest studies the doctors have shown to me and my wife (we are both in long term immunity studies.)

We ourselves have no clear idea if we are protected from the variants, despite our still very high antibody, T helper cell, Killer T cell, and B cell counts 10 months post infection.

We are going to be in another study for the new, updated (against the variants) Moderna vaccine when Karolinska universitetssjukhuset receives it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

52. Thanks for sharing your knowledge! So you and your

wife have already been vaccinated through a study? And it's ok for you to get another vaccine in a potential future study?

I think that is key. Because for some of us who aren't vaccinated and are trying to determine which vaccine to get, the thought of picking one when a more effective one is on the horizon is giving us pause.

That said, here in TX, the rollout is very haphazard with no clear information about where to find vaccine X. Although do understand logistic issues.

[Celerity]

55. No, we have not been vaccinated at all. Our high immunity levels are all from the asymptomatic

COVID-19 we caught back in late April/early May. We are not remotely eligible atm for a regular vaccine. as we are young (24yo), in great health, and already have (and have had) very high long-term immunity levels.

We will get vaccinated with the new modified (for the variants) Moderna vaccine when our doctors at Karolinska get the initial samples. We are eligible due to our long term participation in the current studies, and the fact that we still maintain natural immunity (there are multiple cohorts for the studies).

Ironically, I just got off the phone with a doctor from our current studies, he was confirming that we are now officially signed up for the new Moderna study (he has no idea when the samples come in).

The variants are really tearing shit up all over the EU. We ourselves have had to wear masks for the first time since May (and those didn't help stop us from getting it back then anyway) due to the uncertainty of not knowing if our natural original strain immunity keeps us safe from the variants. Odds are very high they do not (at least to a certain degree). In Brasil, many people have now had COVID twice, first the original and now the P.1 variant, and that variant form is more serious and deadly than the first. There have already been cases of this here in Stockholm as well.

The more the variants spread in the US, the higher the chances are that people walking around thinking they are now safe (whether post COVID infection, or post vaccine, especially Moderna or AstraZeneca) will find out the hard way they are not. I understand this is not a welcome opinion here by some quarters, but I am nothing if not a critical thinker. I question and then do research on damn near everything of import. That is why I posted this OP.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

58. Thank you so much for explaining all that. It all makes sense.

Dr. Hotez, Baylor Medicine, who appears on CNN, said that they have already detected all 5 variants in Houston sewage systems.

And if none of the available vaccines here - Moderna, J & J, nor Pfizer fully protect against all variants, then it makes total sense to select a vaccine with the highest efficacy against the most variants. And continue to practice safe Covid practices.

I suppose the question that still remains is, can you get a newer, more effective vaccine later if you've already been vaccinated once? Or just be resigned to not being better protected until a booster comes out? Or just wait for a better overall vaccine.

BTW, most health experts are really pushing on the media for people to get whatever one you can

[Celerity]

59. For sure people can go get an upgraded version after they have had the first type. In fact, booster

vaccines may well become an annually needed thing. Pfizer so far is the best of all against the variants. I will keep the board posted as to our new modified Moderna vax study. It may be a couple months before I have much to share on that front though.

Demand is far outstripping supply for all vaccines atm, so a person waiting for a certain type is not hindering systemic herd immunity at all, as the vax dose they turned down (if they decide they want another type) will quickly be snapped up by another person.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. Good to know. You answered my question. Unfortunately here

at least, you don't have the luxury of selection. You barely can get appointments unless you hit timing precisely. Then, if you get an appointment, they won't divulge which vaccine it is. So you have to call the pharmacy direct and act like you have a question about something unrelated to Covid. If it's J&J or Moderna, and it's was your loved one, would you tell them to wait and seek out Pfizer?

Again, i don't think you realize how important you are to many in the DU community! Thank you so much for sharing all your knowledge and experience.

[Celerity]

61. thank you so much for the kind words

[Alex4Martinez]

67. While copyright rules prevent more than four paragraphs in one post....

... I believe you're safe to post additional sections in new replies to your own OP.

For example, you could use the subject line PLEASE READ, and then put the concluding argument or best paragraph in that reply.

I am experiencing a pay wall and I see a lot of replies are from people not able to see the important bits, so maybe you can post the good bits!

[Celerity]

69. here, if you missed it, is more

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215205173#post15

[Laura PourMeADrink]

72. Just saw this... Astrazeneca ... Blood clots

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/norway-reports-3-severe-blood-clot-cases-after-astrazeneca-shot/ar-BB1eyiZ9

[Ms. Toad]

7. Nonsense.

No one is running around shoving vaccines into your arm. You have to seek out an appointment. Do your research. Decide which one you prefer, and make an appointment with the site that is administering that vaccine.

I see no reason to treat this medical interaction any differently than I treat any other - by doing my resesarch and pursuing the course that is best for me.

After research, my preference was Pfizer. Before my group became eligible, I researched which providers were administering Pfizer. As soon as my group was eligible I started seeking an appointment from those providers, and received my first vaccination two days after my group became eligible.

If you choose not to research or not to make a choice after researching, that's up to you. Nothing wrong with that. I just resent being called stupid because I choose to research and to make a choice.

[Celerity]

10. Pfizer is working quite better against the S. African and Brasilian variants over here than Moderna

and AstraZeneca are, according to the studies our doctors have shown us. (for over 9 months we have been in a long term immunity study for post COVID patients here in Stockholm at Karolinska universitetssjukhuset).

The number one error I see Americans making is thinking that the 95% efficacy for Moderna and Pfizer is universally applicable to the variants. (seen it done on US telly far too often, and not unexpectedly coming (in but one example) from one of the disinfo asshats who said we would have 300 to 400 THOUSAND dead here in Sweden by spring 2021. We have 13 thousand atm for the entire pandemic. The same hack was long ago pushing the 2 to 3 million dead US schoolchildren tosh.)

I hope you got a chance to read the whole article, the real core is in the last third or so.

Cheers

[GPV]

18. Actually, my entire school union is getting vaccinated Friday. No choice of vaccine, just

J&J. I’m taking it because we keep getting Covid cases in the building.

[Ms. Toad]

19. That would have been a tough choice for me.

At my age, if likely have been eligible outside is the work setting, and have made arrangements for pfizer. If i was younger, I might have taken the J&j. It would be a balancing act -how much longer it would be before I was eligible in a way that gave me a choice v. Personal risk level.

My biggest risk is outside the classroom.

[liberal_mama]

36. My preference was Pfizer too

I also researched the difference vaccines. When I made my appointment, I knew that New York State run vaccine sites were administering Pfizer vaccines during the day. A lot of the county run and pop up sites were giving Moderna.

[Ms. Toad]

40. My spouse got Moderna -

I think that was the better choice for her (although she did not have a personal preference).

She has pretty severe allergies, and one of the risks more strongly associated with Pfizer than Moderna is the risk of an anaphylactic reaction. (And I was glad to have anything in her arm, since she is emotionally incapable of keeping her mask on - and I am extremely tired of wearing my mask while I sleep - or sleeping in the recliner - just to keep myself safe.)

[womanofthehills]

65. Not necessarily - according to the CDC adverse vaccine injury reports (VAERS)

Pfizer has way more serious adverse reactions than Moderna esp. with older people. Right now out here in NM - it's pretty much all Moderna which I think is good. However, I'm checking out J & J because it's a more traditional vaccine. J & J will soon be everywhere because it doesn't have to be kept frozen and it only costs around $2 compared to $15 for the other two. As of now, J & J is supposed to be better for the African strain - but every day we hear something new and all the scientists have differing opinions.

[dalton99a]

8. Kick

Efficacy is merely one layer, though. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have an edge at preventing symptomatic illness, but the Johnson & Johnson vaccine brings its own advantages. It has no demanding freezer requirements, which means it’s easier to distribute and more accessible to many communities. It’s more affordable than the other two—the company is providing it at cost around the world. Then there’s the fact that resources can be stretched a lot further when only a single dose has to be administered.

For individuals, too, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has benefits. As a one-and-done injection, it’s more convenient. It also has a lower rate of adverse events than Moderna’s. You can’t compare results of these trials too precisely, but there are indications of a striking difference. About 2 percent of those who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine recorded having reactions, such as fatigue, muscle aches, and fever, that were severe enough to interfere with daily activities. For those getting their second injection of Moderna, that rate was higher than 15 percent. People who are on the fence about getting vaccinated may find that this difference tips the scales in favor of getting a shot. Others who have doubts about the newness of the mRNA technology in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may appreciate the fact that Johnson & Johnson’s approach has already been deployed in the company’s Ebola vaccine, which got full drug approval in Europe last year.

Given these concerns, there’s some danger in the message—however well intentioned—that the COVID-19 vaccines are all the same by any measure, or that they’re perfect wards against severe disease. Vaccination is a public-health imperative, and going full tilt to promote uptake supports the common good. But it’s a personal health decision too. People want to protect themselves and those close to them, and they are likely to care about outcomes other than hospitalization and death, no matter what anyone says now.

Still, raising these concerns in public can be fraught. In response to an inquiry about her data table, Gandhi affirmed the importance of looking at severe-disease outcomes and noted that “careful, collegial and collaborative scientific discourse on the vaccines is imperative moving forward to help us get through the pandemic.” Topol pointed out that he has emphasized the vaccines’ measured efficacy against symptomatic disease many times before, so any isolated reference to his table “takes that particular post out of context.” Jha wrote in an email that he stands by the message of his original tweet, and notes that COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are so rare among the people vaccinated in these trials, to quibble over differences is akin to “counting how many angels are dancing on the head of the pin.”

[IcyPeas]

9. You're on the Titanic... you take the first lifeboat that you can

Don't turn it away.

[Celerity]

11. That is not the point of the article. nt

[honest.abe]

17. What is the point of the article??

I read it. Seems to me it’s just saying the efficacy data is not perfect. And using a broad brush saying that all vax are 100% effective in preventing death is risky.

But that doesn’t really matter to us as individuals deciding which vaccine to get. Just get the first appointment available regardless of the type. Otherwise the whole process of getting to herd immunity will be delayed.

[Ms. Toad]

21. There are three lifeboats right now. You get to choose.

If it matters to you, find out which vaccine you prefer, make a list of the centers administering that vaccine, and when you are eligible go to the sites of those venders. For the vast majority of people, you are forced to hunt down the life boat. It doesn't just magically appear.

If you don't care, take the first appointment you can get. But most people have to actively seek out an appointment - and since you can't simultaneously jump on every site, you may as well start with the site administering the vaccine you prefer. The point of the article is that there are differences and, like every other medical procedure, you have a choice.

No one is forcing you to make a choice, but please don't disparage those of us who believe in making informed decisions about our health care.

After research, I chose the Pfizer vaccine. My first dose was in my arm within 2 days of being eligible. The same would have been true had i chosen Moderna. Johnson & Johnson probably would have taken a bit longer, since it was not being offered until the week i was eligible, so it took a few days to show up on the websites.

[LisaL]

26. Some places make appointments and don't tell you which vaccine you are going to get.

You will find out when you show up.

[Ms. Toad]

29. They don't just grab you off the street and make an appointment

Aside from employment settings most people still actively make an appointment.

Even if an appointment is made for you, you can call and find out which vaccine it is, or you can research online which vaccine is being administered at the site.

You can also tell based on when your second appointment is. 3 weeks out is Pfizer; 4 weeks out is Moderna; no 2nd appointment is Johnson & Johnson. Many (if not most) places are making the second appointment at the same time as the first is made.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Not Possible In Illnois

Vaccine shopping is not a viable option.
We're already over 2 weeks behind schedule on Phase 1b. Only around 50% of school employees have been vaccinated and under 70% of cops, firefighters & other first responders have gotten the shot.
I was supposed to get the vax the 2nd Monday of February at a school the next county west. I got an email 10 days later saying the entire county ran out. There's only 105,000 people in that county.
Our county is 7x that size. My wife (over 65) has been on the list for 5 weeks now. Not one word heard.
Phase 1a was far better (conjugate living and first line HC workers.)
Around here, waiting for the desired version is a fool's game.

[Ms. Toad]

34. Looks to me like, if you are in an eligible group,

you can sign up at a store of your choosing for a vaccine. Walgreens, OSCO, Walmart, Sam's club all offer individual appointments in the Chicago area. I didn't explore the entire state.

I do have friends in Illinois who have made their own appointments, including one who snuck when the cutoff for eligibility was 65 in because the provider said "born in 1956" counted as age 65.

"on the list" is generally a "fool's game" in most places. You have to actively seek out a vaccine. Those "on the list" likely won't be contacted until those affirmatively looking for vaccines stop pounding down the doors.

(I'm on 3 or 4 lists. I didn't bother to wait for someone to call me - I got on the websites and made my own appointment within 2 days of being eligible. No one, so far, has contacted me from any of the lists. When they do, I'll tell them already found a vaccination on my own. Illinois apears to work the same way, at least as to the providers we have in common.)

ETA: There are currently appointments in Illinois at Walgreens avalable for Pfizer (based on the Walgreens website, using a zip code for Chicago). You'd have to try your own zip code to find them in your area. Stopped looking at sites when I found a provider website that indicated appointments available in Illinois.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Nobody Has Them

Sites show availability, but everything within 75 miles has zero appointments available where going to the store sites for appointments.
The actual availability is different than what appears on the aggregate sites.
It's been like that for a few weeks now.

[Ms. Toad]

42. I went directly to Walgreens -

in a specific Illinois zip code (not an aggregate site). There were appointments available.

Nothing wrong with just sitting and waiting until your name comes to the top of the list, and taking whichever vaccine shows up. But it is a choice.

If you care about which vaccine you get - or you want to get one earlier than waiting for your name to pop to the top of a list - that's a different choice. Pick the vendor who has the vaccine you want. Keep going to the site at different times of the day, or different days of the week, to find a pattern for release of batches of appointments. Call the store and ask when they are released. (I didn't bother the store, but I know others who learned directly from the store when the batches were released).

[ProfessorGAC]

43. BTW

I got an email today that I'm scheduled by the school for 3:30 Thursday.
So, now I'm just focused on my wife!
She's itching now that I'm getting mine, because our 40th anniversary was 2 days after everything in Illinois started shutting down.
In 6 days, we'll hit 41 years, and we still haven't gone to celebrate our 40th.

[Ms. Toad]

44. Congratultions!!!

My parents' 65th was last September. Our 40th is next September. I'm figuring we'll have a big celebration for both in September.

Happy hunting for your wife's vaccine! Just keep trying at different days and times. I put my name on lists the day my age group was announced (before they got the sites configured to accept my age), visited a few sites that evening, and then lucked on about 60 slots at 9:30 the next morning (when there had been none the night before). I had a few minutes to spare before a 10:00 AM meeting, and my plan was to hop on every time I had a few minutes to spare until I found a Pfizer slot open. Just dumb luck that I found it on my first serious day of looking.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Thanks!!

[Ace Rothstein]

46. You must be in the collar counties.

We're getting screwed over here right now. Vaccine distribution has not been equitable around IL so far.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. We Are, Indeed!

State at 18+% of population vaccinated. Our collar county? 11%.
The county to our west around 10%.
They're finishing school system employees, including subs like me, on Thursday after school. So, at least I'm getting the shot this week.

[Ace Rothstein]

48. I keep reading about these counties who are doing so well.

When you go to the state's vaccine data page then you see they've been flooded with vaccines. Meanwhile up here we can't move on to 1b+. Frustrating.

[womanofthehills]

74. Not necessarily- if you are very careful when you go out

You might want to wait a few months and get a vaccine that includes more variants as they keep improving the vaccines . We don’t even know how long the antibodies last. Soon they will probably be giving the new Moderna 3 booster vaccine (now in trial)- as their main Moderna vaccine. So much is unknown.

[JI7]

12. Can people get more than one of the vaccines ?

[Celerity]

13. That is an interesting question, here is some discussion on it

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/should-you-take-more-than-one-type-coronavirus-vaccine-to-boost-immunity

What’s unknown is whether you’d induce an even stronger response with a different form of the coronavirus vaccine. In immunology, the concept is called a “heterologous prime-boost,” and some studies suggest that it might be a more effective way to design vaccine regimens, especially for challenging diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV.

The idea is that you might benefit from the best of two vaccine platforms by eliciting different subsets of T cells, immune system agents that come in “killer” and “helper” forms and play a critical role in attacking an unwanted virus. Those divergent responses would then work in harmony to deliver rock-solid immunity. It’s not yet clear which combinations of vaccine categories are best or in what order. But this two-method punch has been increasingly explored over the past couple of decades as scientists discovered new kinds of vaccine delivery methods.

The science of such vaccine mixing and matching is poised to get a boost itself. That’s because this year’s flood of innovation offers new opportunities to study the interplay between the different COVID-19 vaccine types.

For example, both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines inject pieces of messenger RNA, a vaccine platform that had never been authorized for human use until this month. Another candidate that’s far along in trials by the University of Oxford and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca uses viral-vector technology. It involves transferring the genetic code for SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein—the part that allows the coronavirus to invade cells—into a weakened adenovirus. All of these regimens are given as two doses separated by several weeks.

snip

[honest.abe]

16. What bothers me is that too many people are turning down appointments..

to get their preferred type of vaccine. That is going to slow down the process getting to herd immunity.

[Ms. Toad]

20. No it is not going to slew down herd immunity.

Right now, there are more arms looking for vaccine, than there is a supply of vaccine. People are scrambling to find appointments, not turning them down. So your factual premise is faulty.

But let's assume it is actually true. I run to the website of a provider to make an appointment, see the vaccine being given is J&J , turn up my nose in disgust and don't take an appointment. I can pretty much guarantee you that in an hour, that appointment won't be there, since right now appointments are vanishing even before people can complete the registration process. So that vaccine I turned down is going into someone's arm. Despite me turning it down, the exact same number of people are vaccinated at the end of the day as if i had taken the appointment. And numbers are all that matters for herd immunity.

So at the moment it is purely a personal choice to wait, if necessary, for the vaccine of your choice. It has zero impact on herd immunity. I had to wait all of two days for the vaccine I chose. I was eligible on Thursday, and received my first dose on Saturday. There are still people who are eligible who have been waiting weeks for any vaccine. When that supply of people waiting who can't get any appointment at all runs out, then it is possible that a personal choice to wait for a specific vaccine would delay herd immunity - but that time is not likely to come until sometime this summer.

[honest.abe]

22. Actuallly not true.. at least at the location I got vaccinated.

I got the J&J vax yesterday. I was thinking of changing my appointment to an earlier time so I went into the scheduler and saw there were a bunch of open spots and this was less than 30 minutes before the first appointment. I can't remember exactly but there were on average 1-3 appointments available for all the times listed on the page I was looking at. I would estimate about 30 empty slots over the first hour probably a bunch more in the later times. I suspect many people cancelled when they heard this was the J&J vaccine. So, yes, this does affect herd immunity if similar things are happening in other locations, which I suspect it is.

[Ms. Toad]

23. I suspect that is specific to J&J

Since it was just released, the mechanism to make appointments it not up to speed yet.

When I looked for appointments for Thursday or later last week, the Johnson & Johnson slots were not posted yet. Even if I had wanted to make a Johnson & Johnson appointment, I couldn't have. Much more likely that the appointments were never taken in the first place because of the late scheduling availablity.

But, specifically as to Johnson & Johnson, that is the vaccine that there is no evidence protection extends beyond personal protection. There are small studies demonstrating the mRNA vaccines do prevent transmission. Johnson & Johnson is not an mRNA vaccine. I hope it will not only prevent severe illness and death - but also transmission - BUT herd immunity is created when the vaccine prevents transmission (not just personal protection).

[honest.abe]

24. The mechanism to setup the appointments was available for over a week.

In fact when I first went into to schedule an appointment there were very few slots available if I recall correctly. So it appears many cancelled. That's the problem.

Sounds like you are advocating for people to not get the J&J vaccine. That goes against what most experts are telling us.

[Ms. Toad]

30. I am advocating for people to make an informed choice.

Personally, I would not have taken the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. I - personally - have too many risk factors - so I need the best protection available. That is either Pfizer or Moderna.

If I was younger, and didn't have 2 (likely 3) forms of cancer and diabetes I might accept a 35+% risk of still getting COVID if Johnson & Johnson was available but neither Pfizer nor Moderna were.

If I had already had COVID I would probably accept a Johnson & Johnson vaccine, since the early data suggests that a vaccination after having COVID acts as second shot. No proof - but my guess is that it would boost the effectiveness of Johnson & Johnson.

I am also concerned, with respect to creating herd immunity, because the Johnson & Johnson uses a different mechanism to establish immunity. It has only been tested to confirm that it prevents serious illness or death. Serious illness and death are not the COVID cases that are super-spreaders. People who become seriously ill or die largely stay home or go to the hospital. People who have COVID without symptoms run around and spread it to others.

Johnson & Johnson (or the mechanism by which it creates immunity) has not been tested as to whether it prevents the disease itself (including the asymptomatic variety - by which the largest spread occurs). So I have concerns about it being used in communities with the highest risk - for the same reason that I have concerns about it for me personally. It has not been tested yet to determine whether it prevents transmission.

All vaccines suffer from that deficiency - but there are a few studies suggesting the mRNA vaccines prevent transmission. One which is small - but expressly tested for asymptomatic disease following vaccination. (Something none of the vaccines were initially tested for.) Johnson and Johnson is NOT an mRNA vaccine.

As for your experience scheduling - having very few slots available is consistent with Johnson & Johnson not being integrated into scheduling. There were zero Johnson and Johnson slots listed on the national website when I scheduled a week ago today. It was not even an option to schedule a Johnson & Johnson vaccine because it was just barely approved for use and the websites had not been updated to permit scheduling.

[honest.abe]

32. There was no mention of the type of vaccine when I signed up.

Only found out at the time I arrived. My suspicion is that some called to find out the vaccine type after they registered then canceled when they found out it was J&J. That’s the problem.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

25. "The vaccines were all 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations and death."

That's all I needed to hear

[Celerity]

28. Except, if you read the article, you will see that is not true. nt

[BannonsLiver]

27. So last week was "fat people shouldn't bother with the vaccine" week

And this week is “they’re not as effective as they say” week.

I’m sensing a narrative.

[Meowmee]

31. When I made my appointment

I was just relieved I was going to finally be vaccinated. There was no chance of scheduling a specific vaccine. It is nice that people in some areas have that luxury. I think it was a miracle I got one 3-4 days after I became eligible. My brother still cannot get an appointment.

I received the pfizer vaccine which I did not know until I arrived at the vaccine room where a sign said pfizer etc. I am ok with it. I get my 2nd shot tomorrow. I am relieved that I now already have a large percentage of protection. 2 doses of pfizer are believed to be protective of 2 of the newer strains from what I have read so far. So in 2 weeks or so I will have an amazing amount of protection from covid 19 and some of the new variants, maybe others as well.

Imo any vaccine is better than none at all. I had covid pneumonia in April and still have back pain and lung effects. My father recently survived it after being exposed at the ER but he is now having major terrible effects including episodes of psychotic events.

Get whatever vaccine you can get. You can get another one later or a booster when they make one.

[48656c6c6f20]

54. I always choice 60ish percent over 95ish in life

Because it's always better. That's new math everyone knows that. If I buy a car the one with 60 percent reliability is obviously better than the one with 95 percent reliability. Duh.

[Celerity]

56. Those 95% efficacy rates, btw, are not against the variants. Studies here in the EU are actually

starting to show that the J & J possibly performs better against 2 of the variants (the Brasilian P.1, and possiblly the South African one as well) than the current Moderna (not the Pfizer, this has so far been the best of all of them) vaccine.

[Alex4Martinez]

68. Would you agree with me?: J&J preferably, Moderna second, Pfizer last.

I like the one shot idea, and don't trust the must-be-kept-supercold Pfizer.

I would probably take any of them but would wait a few days for Moderna or J&J

What do you think?

[Celerity]

70. I am not qualified to render an opinion as to which is best, all I can do is post the latest info

S. African Variant Challenges Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210309/s-african-variant-challenges-pfizer-moderna-vaccines

March 9, 2021 -- The Pfizer/ and Moderna vaccines don’t work as well against the coronavirus variant first discovered in South Africa as they do against the dominant virus strain first seen in United Kingdom, a new study says. In the study, 10 blood samples were taken from people who received the Pfizer vaccine, 28 days after the second dose, and 12 samples from those who received the Moderna vaccine, 43 days after the second dose, Business Insider reported, citing a study published in Nature.

The goal was to find out how well the blood sample antibodies “neutralized” the original coronavirus, the variant from South Africa (called B.1.351), and the variant found in the U.K. (B.1.1.7).

The key finding: The percentage of positive antibodies that neutralized the South African variant was 12.4 fold lower for the Moderna vaccine than against the original coronavirus and 10.3 fold lower for the Pfizer vaccine, the study says.

The researchers found that the two vaccines still appear to work well against the variant first found in the U.K. “Overall, the neutralizing activity against B.1.1.7 was essentially unchanged, but significantly lower against B.1.351,” the study said.

snip

[LisaL]

73. Pfizer is a really good vaccine.

Israel is getting real life results with it, since they are mostly using Pfizer, and it's working really well in real life.

[bullwinkle428]

57. I understand your concerns about the Moderna vaccine based on the

comprehensive evidence presented in the article, but that is the one that Dr. Fauci ended up going with personally.

The country's most prominent infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, received his first dose of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine on Tuesday in a ceremonial event at the National Institutes of Health.

The event was shown live on national television as part of an effort to reassure Americans that the vaccine was safe and effective. Fauci said he feels "extreme confidence" in the science behind the vaccine and wanted to get vaccinated publicly as a symbol for everyone in the country, as well as protecting him in his work where he sees patients at NIH.

"I feel extreme confidence in the safety and the efficacy of this vaccine and I want to encourage everyone who has the opportunity to get vaccinated so that we can have a veil of protection over this country, that would end this pandemic," he said as he waited for his shot.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fauci-receives-vaccine-extremely-confident-effective/story?id=74859728

[madville]

63. They could actually be equal since

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were tested before the UK and SA variants emerged. Their numbers could actually be similar to the J&J numbers with the new variants circulating. It doesn’t matter much in the end, they all make it almost 100% survivable.

[WyattKansas]

64. I am still waiting for a valid reason to cut off T1 Diabetics from vaccination priority.

From what I have seen for the explanation is a bunch of bullshit and backstabbing move by the Government.

Where is the CDC's scientific study that validates their move to say T1 Diabetics are not of urgent risk for the vaccine, but T2 Diabetics are of urgent risk?

Are the Donald Dumbass Frat Boys still running the CDC or are real scientists back in charge? If real scientists are, then how do they explain this evidence absent and stupid move?

[Meowmee]

66. In NY type 1 are eligible as well, as they should be.

[Alex4Martinez]

71. Kickity!

Thanks for helping make a complex treatise comprehensible.

Lots of moving parts, for sure.