This is just the actual paper rather than the leaked abstract from a few weeks ago.
They commissioned a new study to assess the efficacy more precisely especially for severe cases.
How does J&J vaccine offer 50%+ protection, but AZ does not?
Don't they use the same technology?
Don't they target the same spike protein?
They target the same protein but just like with the mRNA vaccine they usually do not encode the entire protein but rather target specific amino acid chains in various regions of interest on the protein itself.
Other differences in the vaccine would be the level and type of immune response generated in general which will be based on the specific viral vector used, dose and regiment, adjuvants etc.
The study which measured the J&J efficacy also used a different methodology to this one.
Overall this is a very limited study and should be taken in context.
Another key part is that the T-cell response for the AZ vaccine group seems to remain intact.
>Although the correlation between antibody response and vaccine efficacy is high, which suggests that the neutralizing antibody response is important, T-cell responses may contribute to protection from Covid-19 even in the presence of lower neutralizing antibody titers.32 In a post hoc analysis reported here, we found that in spike-specific T cells that expanded after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, the majority of antigens and epitopes remained intact in recognition of the B.1.351 variant.
Until we have data on actual severe cases it seems that the AZ vaccine is still effective at preventing hospitalization and deaths. There were also no tracking of non-symptomatic cases in the study so the actual prevalence of infections in either group is unkown.
If for example each vaccine selected 30 amino acid chains say 15 common ones and 15 that are varied between vaccines you can end up with vaccines that are more effective against certain mutations than others.
Realistically COVID-19 isn’t going anywhere and it will likely become very much endemic and will require a yearly vaccine especially for risk groups just like influenza.
But yes none of the vaccines use the actual spike protein, they all target slightly different amino acid chains on that protein.
No other trial did this. Which means the 95% efficacy for phizer/moderna is not actually correct. we have no way of knowing how many were asymptomatic.
(After the intial trial phases had concluded Pfizer only reported how many symptomatic cases were prevented which might be the "95%" number you have in mind)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
Just curious, as I've received the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine.
For other classes of drugs, these same companies have been sued and fined for billions of dollars for covering up problems with their drugs.
The regulators are beyond incompetent, they're typically industry shills.
It is such a weird stance, implying that it can never make sense for the FDA to change how they do things.
I’m advocating for higher standards, not lower. With regards to the COVID vaccine, we’ve decreased the quality and quantity of research performed over what we’ve done for previous vaccines.
It sounds like you’re saying that the research on these vaccines is better than before. Which is confusing because they have not obtained FDA Approval. If they had been tested to the same rigor as other vaccines, they would have received this Approval.
> implying that it can never make sense for the FDA to change how they do things.
Again, that’s not what I’m implying. I’m implying that we should change how they do things in only one direction- more safe. Long term research and vigorous testing.
Not rushed testing who’s new rules are dictated by industry-captured regulators.
I mean, is this a serious question?
https://www.citizen.org/article/outrage-of-the-month-revolvi...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/4956945...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/fda-s-revolving-door...
Just look at the hospitalization and death rates for old people in the countries with high vaccination rates.
1) If it actually prevents detectable infection altogether, it's some evidence of preventing spread, sooner. (as I understand we have some of that evidence now that it's in wide use)
2) If there are long term effects of even asymptomatic cases, we'd have some reason to believe that those are mitigated as well.
I presume you already have a lot of antibodies after vaccination.
"To test for asymptomatic infections, participants in COV002 in the UK were asked to provide a weekly self-administered nose and throat swab for NAAT testing from 1 week after first vaccination using kits provided by the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)."
With notes:
"In Brazil, there was no testing plan for asymptomatic infections. In South Africa, asymptomatic infections were detected from swabs obtained at study visits attended, but are not summarised here as there were only a small number of timepoints for detection of these cases."
And you can see results here [2], which includes both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases (if someone could confirm)?
From Pfizer study [3]:
"Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test)."
And per their news release [4]:
"Data from this study, including longer term safety, comprehensive information on duration of protection, efficacy against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, and safety and immunogenicity in adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be gathered in the months ahead."
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext#cesec100
[2] https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/snippets/astrazeneca-looks-us-data-and-next-gen-vaccine
[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
[4] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-publication-results-landmarkMaybe someday.
It is correct, it just efficacy against covid-19 disease, not against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infection and disease are two distinct concepts.
There is no distinction between "disease" and "infection" in medicine. There is asymptomatic infection, mild, serious and fatal. Even then its not as clear cut as that.
We don't yet have clear data on asymptomatic infection for J&J, moderna, phizer or novavax.
I'm not suggesting that we stop jabbing people, quite the opposite. Even if AZ is less effective, roll it the fuck out. The quicker we get 60-70% of people immune, or partially immune, the quicker this shitshow will be over.
That's completely false. An infection is an invasion by a foreign pathogen, a disease is a set of observed symptoms[0].
For other examples of infection/disease distinctions, see HIV and AIDS.
Obviously there is a distinction, auto immune diseases/cancer/congenintal are the overwhelming example.
What I should have said is: that in this instance we are measuring infection. disease is marketing speak.
> There's a difference between infection and disease. Infection, often the first step, occurs when bacteria, viruses or other microbes that cause disease enter your body and begin to multiply. Disease occurs when the cells in your body are damaged — as a result of the infection — and signs and symptoms of an illness appear.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infectious-di...
* Infection does not necessarily lead to disease. Infection occurs when viruses, bacteria, or other microbes enter your body and begin to multiply. Disease, which typically happens in a small proportion of infected people, occurs when the cells in your body are damaged as a result of infection, and signs and symptoms of an illness appear.*
That people don't bother to understand what they read is a problem of course.
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behi...
However all these vaccines you listed coerce a small number of your cells to make spike proteins of whatever sort, which results in bits of them being put on the surface of the cells. I don't know how much of the spike protein gets outside cells, either through direct escape or creation of new viruses, have not looked up the exact details of what J&J and Oxford mean by their viral vectors being replication deficient. That is, they don't produce new viruses that can attack other cells.
The biggest difference is their goals, Oxford was intended to be a regular vaccine, J&J intended to get the very best protection from a single vaccination, with an initial goal of protecting a billion people in 2021, now increased to 3 billion. Besides J&J's press releases and slow but sure development methodology see the difference in their Phase III trial primary endpoints, here's J&J's https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/ensemble-1-study-protocol:
To demonstrate the efficacy of Ad26.COV2.S in the prevention of molecularly confirmed, moderate to severe/critical coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), as compared to placebo, in SARS-CoV-2 seronegative adults
As in, not stopping people from getting the disease, that's a secondary objective.
AZ/Oxford will be hard to track down because they did several different Phase III trails in even more countries. I'd start with ClinicalTrials.gov, look for Primary Outcome Measures and this is a good search to start with: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=ChAdOx1&cond=Cov... For the US trial:
The efficacy of 2 IM doses of AZD1222 compared to saline placebo for the prevention of COVID-19
J&J is also doing a 2 dose 8 weeks apart US based Phase III trail to see what that can accomplish.