Current Events > Vaccine only gives 3% protection after 6 months?

(+) Yeah! (+)

For the Johnson and Johnson one.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10099209/FDA-advisory-committee-recommended-approval-J-J-vaccine.html

How come they didnt realize this before?

I honestly dont buy that. I got my vaccine ASAP, but these guys are making bank, so they naturally want us getting more.

---

Dailymail only gets 3% of the story right?

This sounds ridiculous

---

Moderna gang

---

^

>dailymail

lol

---

part of me thinks that number has to be higher.
plan to get that shot as soon as it's authorized.
---

Dailymail isn't a reputable source of information.

---

The Enquirer says the Bat-Baby started COVID-19?? Why am I just hearing about this?

---

metallica846 posted...

One study, released Thursday but not peer-reviewed, tracked more than 620,000 military veterans who received the vaccine and found that protection fell from 88% in March to just 3% in August.

Close this topic.

I think TC should have probably just framed it differently.

"An early not yet peer reviewed study shows J&J efficacy considerably waned" And then just link to the study.

It's nothing to draw firm conclusions from, but it's certainly worth keeping an eye on IMO.

---

3% is still good

---

Shut up toyota

---

joe40001 posted...

I think TC should have probably just framed it differently.

"An early not yet peer reviewed study shows J&J efficacy considerably waned" And then just link to the study.

It's nothing to draw firm conclusions from, but it's certainly worth keeping an eye on IMO.

Until things are proven, they might as well not exist

---

people want the vaccines to be bad or to not work so badly for some reason

---

Lol of course the mods left this up.

---

toyota posted...

How come they didnt realize this before?

I don't know, can you think of reasons why they wouldn't notice this after 6 months? Let's see how good your logical thinking is.

---

Mr_Karate_II posted...

Dailymail isn't a reputable source of information.

And which one is?

---

Not a problem if you take one every 6 months. Heck, make it 3 just to be safe

---

spikethedevil posted...

Lol of course the mods left this up.

Why would they take it down?

---

J&J is shorter than vaccine. My grandmother died of covid you POS.

Jx1010 posted...

And which one is?

An actual journal article that has been peer reviewed, rather than some layman's misinterpretation of such an article like most news sites tend to put out.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Until things are proven, they might as well not exist

You really don't get anything "proven", you get things demonstrated with increasingly levels of certainty, and so any data point is relevant when viewed in it's appropriate context.

Also Peer-reviewed things have been retracted.
Many not yet peer reviewed things have turned out to be true.

So I really don't even know what you mean when you say "proven".

But to say it's "not yet peer reviewed" isn't to say "it's likely made up". Yes, there are plenty of issues with it, so don't accept it at face value. But I do think even a preprint can suggest that J&J might have waning efficacy, and considering the FDA recommendation for a booster I think such a conclusion is certainly possible.

BTW, here seems to be the actual study:
Header:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1
Pdf:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1.full.pdf

---

ThyCorndog posted...

people want the vaccines to be bad or to not work so badly for some reason

I truly don't want them to be bad or not work. Ideally they'd work completely and never need boosters.

But I do want to know if they have waning efficacy. Prudent scientific policy requires accurate data.

Nothing good is accomplish by misrepresenting data, whichever way it points.

---

joe40001 posted...

I truly don't want them to be bad or not work. Ideally they'd work completely and never need boosters.

You have no idea how vaccines work. These vaxxes are among the best ever developed.

---

brestugo posted...

These vaxxes are among the best ever developed.

I don't see how that contradicts my statement that I think everybody would ideally want ones that were 100% effective and never needed boosters.

I'm not saying these are shit because that's not how they function, but I am disagreeing with the premise that I want them in any way to be ineffective.

---

ShutTheF---Up posted...

^

---

It's not towards you

---

Tappor posted...

It's not towards you

Dang, lol, I'm sorry.

One fault of mine that my therapist calls me out on (and I totally admit I have) is the idea I have that people are being hostile against me when they aren't.

I apologize. I need to be better at not jumping to that assumption.

---

joe40001 posted...

But to say it's "not yet peer reviewed" isn't to say "it's likely made up". Yes, there are plenty of issues with it, so don't accept it at face value. But I do think even a preprint can suggest that J&J might have waning efficacy, and considering the FDA recommendation for a booster I think such a conclusion is certainly possible.

I looked quickly to see how they get this so called "3%," and here's their chart.

Someone mind explaining this weird P-Value here?
Because they use this august hazard ratio to come to the conclusion that it's about 3% effective because 1-Hazard ratio so the average for august is .97. 1-.97 is therefore the 3% they claim. But with their own self admitted p value of .5172 makes this really hard to believe. You generally want a p-value lower than .0001. So...is this whole thing pointless conjecture? Why is this released as if it's official when they post their own p-value of .5172. It makes no sense.

I'll read the whole thing to try to find out, and edit this if anything pops up.

---

I'll take "How do confidence intervals work for $800, Alex"



"No wait, don't actually read the paper!!!!!"

---

badjay posted...

I looked quickly to see how they get this so called "3%," and here's their chart.

Someone mind explaining this weird P-Value here?
Because they use this august hazard ratio to come to the conclusion that it's about 3% effective because 1-Hazard ratio so the average for august is .97. 1-.97 is therefore the 3% they claim. But with their own self admitted p value of .5172 makes this really hard to believe. You generally want a p-value lower than .0001. So...is this whole thing pointless conjecture? Why is this released as if it's official when they post their own p-value of .5172. It makes no sense.

I'll read the whole thing to try to find out, and edit this if anything pops up.

Judging by the ridiculous confidence interval, my guess is that basically nobody they studied (VA recipients) received the J&J vaccine, which is why that "3%" had no meaningful impact on the overall average immunity rate of ~60%


---

JnJ is the real only one that is ORIGINAL in terms of process,

the other two are alot alike.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Dailymail only gets 3% of the story right?

This sounds ridiculous

Hah

---

joe40001 posted...

I don't see how that contradicts my statement that I think everybody would ideally want ones that were 100% effective and never needed boosters.

I'm not saying these are shit because that's not how they function, but I am disagreeing with the premise that I want them in any way to be ineffective.

They likely will never, ever be 100%. Even in modern times, birth control, condoms, hell even a woman getting her tubes tied isn't 100% protection, and pregnancy can still happen. It's pretty senseless to opt out of a rubber if you aren't trying get pregnant, just because it isn't a guaranteed protection. I think this is among the biggest annoyances when it comes to anti-vax people presenting arguments. No shit, it isn't a lock if you get vaccinated, but reducing the risk severely, and getting everyone on board makes the future of this virus look a hell of a lot less bleak.

Point being, it's been so politicized now, that people are so far right that they want reason to hate the vax, and the "libs who support it" need to be wrong. Not saying this is your stance Joe, but it's very much happening.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Judging by the ridiculous confidence interval, my guess is that basically nobody they studied (VA recipients) received the J&J vaccine, which is why that "3%" had no meaningful impact on the overall average immunity rate of ~60%

Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on with the August data. Besides "3%" seems very fishy. The July data is more in keeping with what I've heard from other sources. If it drops to approximately 60% efficacy that could be why FDA is recommending boosters.

Seems like the article writers picked an extreme data point not appreciating that it's p-value made it irrelevant.

---

MabusIncarnate posted...

They likely will never, ever be 100%. Even in modern times, birth control, condoms, hell even a woman getting her tubes tied isn't 100% protection, and pregnancy can still happen. It's pretty senseless to opt out of a rubber if you aren't trying get pregnant, just because it isn't a guaranteed protection. I think this is among the biggest annoyances when it comes to anti-vax people presenting arguments. No shit, it isn't a lock if you get vaccinated, but reducing the risk severely, and getting everyone on board makes the future of this virus look a hell of a lot less bleak.

Point being, it's been so politicized now, that people are so far right that they want reason to hate the vax, and the "libs who support it" need to be wrong. Not saying this is your stance Joe, but it's very much happening.

Oh yeah, I basically agree with all that you said.

PS: I also IMO think people are too glib about worrying about risks of pregnancies. People use condoms/the pill like they are 100% effective when they just aren't. And even something like a 1/200 risk is HUGE when it comes to bringing a human life into the world.

---

joe40001 posted...

Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on with the August data. Besides "3%" seems very fishy. The July data is more in keeping with what I've heard from other sources. If it drops to approximately 60% efficacy that could be why FDA is recommending boosters.

Seems like the article writers picked an extreme data point not appreciating that it's p-value made it irrelevant.

It's even more egregious than that, because that study wasn't even published yet. They literally took a pre-published article, and focused on a data point that is most likely irrelevant.

---

DarkRoast posted...

It's even more egregious than that, because that study wasn't even published yet. They literally took a pre-published article, and focused on a data point that is most likely irrelevant.

Yeah, it was a failure of journalism to present this in the way they did.

---

toyota posted...

dailymail.co

toyota and Duckbear sittin in a tree

---

p-values test against a null, not the evidentiary strength of an estimate. The test here seems to be against 0, or a hazard of 1. That dude has me blocked though, so he won't see this answer.

---

just inject 33 more for that sweet 99%

---

joe40001 posted...

If it drops to approximately 60% efficacy that could be why FDA is recommending boosters.

60% is about the rate or close to what a flu vaccine covers on a good day
---

Why are non peer reviewed studies even allowed to be posted anywhere?

---

LightHawKnight posted...

Why are non peer reviewed studies even allowed to be posted anywhere?

You'd be surprised how little peer review actually does.

---

Pretty sure J&J got a 60% efficacy rate in the trials for emergency approval.

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

You'd be surprised how little peer review actually does.

Better than randos trying to make shit about based on one study. Peer reviewed studies also tend to have other people trying it out to see if they get similar results.

---

LightHawKnight posted...

Peer reviewed studies also tend to have other people trying it out to see if they get similar results

Peer review has nothing to do with that.

---