> Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%.
But we're talking 91% vs. 76%.
But we're talking 91% vs. 76%.
Whereas the JJ virus was tested during the fall 2nd-wave in South Africa when there was a lot of cases and more cases of a higher infection strain.
The only fair comparison would be if all of the testing was done at the same time in the same geographic location.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A&feature=youtu.be
[1] https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/29/real-world-study-by-cdc-...
> The study suggested that even the first dose of vaccine was 80% effective at preventing infection
Which is within the error bar of J&J's one dose result in the US (75%). We will have to see the results of the 2-dose J&J trial coming out soon, but I expect that to be around 90% too.
It's also worth noting that some places in the world (UK, Canada), have been using 1-dose pfizer regimen to get the most out of their short supply, with possible 2nd shot 3-4 months down the line. Similarly, we could see a delayed J&J booster being given to increase immunity to matching 90%.
Of course they used somewhat different geographical regions so you can't compare them, but still the 91% does include variants.
Pfizer/Moderena both did their trial from July-November, whereas J&J did their phase 3 from Sept-January. Looking at the COVID case graph [0], you can see J&J was tested at the peak. Not only that, J&J was party tested in the UK and South Africa, when the two new variants were starting to take over.
[0] https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/02/15/seamus-coronavir...
Medical workers take precautions better than the general public, maybe? But they're also far more exposed.
So yes, once you take into account the +/- 5% error, they seem to be pretty much equal.