> The main thing I'm wondering is if the people that got covid post J&J had really mild disease (like a tiny cold or something) or "mild" disease like absolutely miserable but just didn't have to go to ICU. Is that information known?
Of course. It's right there in the FDA report, starting on page 51:
https://www.fda.gov/media/146219/download
7.1.1.5.3 Case Definition for Mild COVID-19
• A SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR or molecular test result from any available respiratory tract sample (eg, nasal swab sample, sputum sample, throat swab sample, saliva sample) or other sample;
AND at any time during the course of observation:
• One of the following symptoms: fever (≥38.0°C or ≥100.4°F), sore throat, malaise (loss of appetite, generally unwell, fatigue, physical weakness), headache, muscle pain (myalgia), gastrointestinal symptoms, cough, chest congestion, runny nose, wheezing, skin rash, eye irritation or discharge, chills, new or changing olfactory or taste disorders, red or bruised looking feet or toes, or shaking chills or rigors.
You will find equivalently precise definitions of moderate and severe disease, as well. And if you care to look, you can find the same thing for all of the other FDA-approved vaccines. They're similar, but not identical. In general, "mild disease" is what most reasonable people would consider to be mild disease, but there are minor differences in terms of which specific symptoms/thresholds are used. For this vaccine specifically, you can see that having two or more of the above symptoms will bump you into the "moderate disease" category. So they're pretty strict.
> The question is if one is better than the other and the answer seems like yes.
Given that you clearly haven't read the data, I don't know how you can possibly make such a speculation.
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this entire affair has been defined by people who are way too willing to speculate after reading a few news articles.