OT: COVID Science - Pfizer/Moderna vaccines >90% effective; Regeneron antibody cocktail looks very promising in phase II/III trial and more

[ArminRU]

J&J numbers are about what I thought they would be.

Good enough to get approved, maybe for only those under 55 though. Need to see the data.

One thing to note here is their efficacy numbers are on moderate to severe only whereas Pfizer/Moderna was all symptoms.

J&J’s definition of mild is a positive test + a single symptom (such as cough or fever). Moderate is defined as a positive test + more than 1 of the classic symptoms. You gotta think that most mild cases do consist of more than just 1 symptom though.

 

[bob-loblaw]

Getting away from the political BS, good to see Novavax #'s come through positively.

J&J's #'s were good, not great. Which is going to lead to a fun dilemma when people are going to get vaxed and wanting to cherry pick which vax they get.

I was able to get Pfizer yesterday. I was happy to get a mRNA vax as I like the science behind it over a traditional vax like the pending J&J one. Arm is sore, but so far so good.

 

[pmvon]

Good numbers?

Someone more informed than me is better to respond but I think they are good numbers for the general population particularly lower risk who are concerned about the new MRNA tech as this relies on usual vaccine technology. The sour Africa variant numbers are concerning however and do we know if this is even better with two doses?

 

[WhiteBus]

Great numbers. Kept 100% out of the hospital. One shot. Easily stored. In many ways better than what we have now.

I doubt Pfizer and Moderna are 95% anymore.

 

[pmvon]

J&J numbers are about what I thought they would be.

Good enough to get approved, maybe for only those under 55 though. Need to see the data.

One thing to note here is their efficacy numbers are on moderate to severe only whereas Pfizer/Moderna was all symptoms.

J&J’s definition of mild is a positive test + a single symptom (such as cough or fever). Moderate is defined as a positive test + more than 1 of the classic symptoms. You gotta think that most mild cases do consist of more than just 1 symptom though.

How does JJ single dose compare to others single dose?

 

[RuRats27]

While not directly analogous would it be accurate to say that the general effect of the J&J would be like the Flu shot in that you could still get flu symptoms but if you’ve had the shot you most likely won’t end up in the hospital or dead? If so then I think it’s a win even if it’s not as perfect as the mRNA vaccines due to ease of storage, production, and one shot for now.

 

[Upstream]

JJ 66% effective 85% against severe disease and 100% against hospitalization

Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says | CNN

Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 single-shot vaccine was shown to be 66% effective in preventing moderate and severe disease in a global Phase 3 trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, the company announced Friday.

www.cnn.com

I think it is significant that the J&J vaccine appeared to provide 100% protection against hospitalization and death in all regions, including South Africa where the B.1.351 variant is dominant.

Also, the 85% protection against severe disease seems to increase as more time passes following vaccination. The 85% protection was measured at 28 days following vaccination. But no cases of severe disease were reported after 49 days following vaccination (again, across all regions).

The overall efficacy numbers for the J&J vaccine appear to be lower than for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, but I am not sure if a direct comparison is applicable. First, I am not sure the end-point definitions of mild, moderate, and severe disease are the same for all trials. But more importantly the J&J trial data is from a period in which there was a much higher level of Covid infections in the trial countries, and a greater number of new Covid variants. If the J&J trial was conducted during the earlier timeframe of lower infections and variants, these results may have looked different; likewise if the Moderna and Pfizer trials were conducted in the later period of higher infections and variants, their result may have looked different.

The bottom line is that if you get the J&J vaccine, it appears that it will prevent hospitalization and death from the current variants of Covid. And it appears that about 7 weeks following vaccination you will be fairly well protected against severe disease. But you would still have some risk of getting mild or moderate symptoms (which also implies that you could be contagious to others).

it is hard to say if you are better off getting the J&J, Moderna, or Pfizer vaccine, since we can't really compare efficacy rates across the vaccines, and we don't know how protective the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are against new variants. But since most people won't have a choice in which vaccine they receive in the near future, you probably should just get the vaccine that is available to you.

 

[richthedentist]

I think it is significant that the J&J vaccine appeared to provide 100% protection against hospitalization and death in all regions, including South Africa where the B.1.351 variant is dominant.

Also, the 85% protection against severe disease seems to increase as more time passes following vaccination. The 85% protection was measured at 28 days following vaccination. But no cases of severe disease were reported after 49 days following vaccination (again, across all regions).

The overall efficacy numbers for the J&J vaccine appear to be lower than for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, but I am not sure if a direct comparison is applicable. First, I am not sure the end-point definitions of mild, moderate, and severe disease are the same for all trials. But more importantly the J&J trial data is from a period in which there was a much higher level of Covid infections in the trial countries, and a greater number of new Covid variants. If the J&J trial was conducted during the earlier timeframe of lower infections and variants, these results may have looked different; likewise if the Moderna and Pfizer trials were conducted in the later period of higher infections and variants, their result may have looked different.

The bottom line is that if you get the J&J vaccine, it appears that it will prevent hospitalization and death from the current variants of Covid. And it appears that about 7 weeks following vaccination you will be fairly well protected against severe disease. But you would still have some risk of getting mild or moderate symptoms (which also implies that you could be contagious to others).

it is hard to say if you are better off getting the J&J, Moderna, or Pfizer vaccine, since we can't really compare efficacy rates across the vaccines, and we don't know how protective the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are against new variants. But since most people won't have a choice in which vaccine they receive in the near future, you probably should just get the vaccine that is available to you.

I am not the scientist here but I believe you can still have mild or moderate symptoms with Pfizer and Moderna even with there so called 95% success rates so all in all the JNJ vaccines is a success

 

[pmvon]

I think it is significant that the J&J vaccine appeared to provide 100% protection against hospitalization and death in all regions, including South Africa where the B.1.351 variant is dominant.

Also, the 85% protection against severe disease seems to increase as more time passes following vaccination. The 85% protection was measured at 28 days following vaccination. But no cases of severe disease were reported after 49 days following vaccination (again, across all regions).

The overall efficacy numbers for the J&J vaccine appear to be lower than for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, but I am not sure if a direct comparison is applicable. First, I am not sure the end-point definitions of mild, moderate, and severe disease are the same for all trials. But more importantly the J&J trial data is from a period in which there was a much higher level of Covid infections in the trial countries, and a greater number of new Covid variants. If the J&J trial was conducted during the earlier timeframe of lower infections and variants, these results may have looked different; likewise if the Moderna and Pfizer trials were conducted in the later period of higher infections and variants, their result may have looked different.

The bottom line is that if you get the J&J vaccine, it appears that it will prevent hospitalization and death from the current variants of Covid. And it appears that about 7 weeks following vaccination you will be fairly well protected against severe disease. But you would still have some risk of getting mild or moderate symptoms (which also implies that you could be contagious to others).

it is hard to say if you are better off getting the J&J, Moderna, or Pfizer vaccine, since we can't really compare efficacy rates across the vaccines, and we don't know how protective the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are against new variants. But since most people won't have a choice in which vaccine they receive in the near future, you probably should just get the vaccine that is available to you.

And what if JJ did a booster like the others? I believe they were looking at a two dose regimen at one point.

 

[ArminRU]

How does JJ single dose compare to others single dose?

Other vaccines have too limited data on just a single dose to compare.

 

[ArminRU]

I am not the scientist here but I believe you can still have mild or moderate symptoms with Pfizer and Moderna even with there so called 95% success rates so all in all the JNJ vaccines is a success

I believe the Pfizer and Moderna trials included all symptoms in their 95%.

Only asymptomatic cases weren’t counted in Pfizer/Moderna. If you got a cough and tested positive, you were part of the 5%. With J&J, that wouldn’t qualify towards the efficacy number they just announced. But who really only gets a single symptom anyway?

Either way, I would like to see their efficacy including mild cases. I’m guessing it’s slightly lower....they were smart to chop it up like this.

Bottom line is it’s 1 shot and keeps people out of the hospital. If it performs better in younger people, give it to them and let the older people get the Pfizer/Moderna for the added protection.

 

[RU848789]

I think it is significant that the J&J vaccine appeared to provide 100% protection against hospitalization and death in all regions, including South Africa where the B.1.351 variant is dominant.

Also, the 85% protection against severe disease seems to increase as more time passes following vaccination. The 85% protection was measured at 28 days following vaccination. But no cases of severe disease were reported after 49 days following vaccination (again, across all regions).

The overall efficacy numbers for the J&J vaccine appear to be lower than for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, but I am not sure if a direct comparison is applicable. First, I am not sure the end-point definitions of mild, moderate, and severe disease are the same for all trials. But more importantly the J&J trial data is from a period in which there was a much higher level of Covid infections in the trial countries, and a greater number of new Covid variants. If the J&J trial was conducted during the earlier timeframe of lower infections and variants, these results may have looked different; likewise if the Moderna and Pfizer trials were conducted in the later period of higher infections and variants, their result may have looked different.

The bottom line is that if you get the J&J vaccine, it appears that it will prevent hospitalization and death from the current variants of Covid. And it appears that about 7 weeks following vaccination you will be fairly well protected against severe disease. But you would still have some risk of getting mild or moderate symptoms (which also implies that you could be contagious to others).

it is hard to say if you are better off getting the J&J, Moderna, or Pfizer vaccine, since we can't really compare efficacy rates across the vaccines, and we don't know how protective the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are against new variants. But since most people won't have a choice in which vaccine they receive in the near future, you probably should just get the vaccine that is available to you.

Nice write-up, but one thing I think some are overlooking is that the 100% protection against "hospitalization and death" is not 100% protection against hospitalization, which I think some think is the case. The press release says the vaccine is 85% protective against severe disease, but severe disease obviously would include hospitalization, as per below. By contrast, the Moderna vaccine was 100% protective against severe COVID and the Pfizer one was very close to that.

Now, as you said, it's quite possible some of this is comparing apples to oranges, since the Moderna/Pfizer trials were run before the new UK/SA variants had emerged. It would be nice to see post-approval data on the mRNA vaccines from South Africa/UK, against those variants (if those data even exist - I haven't seen much about post-approval data collection, other than the anaphylaxis reports from vaccines - has anyone seen data on infection rates and/or hospitalization rates for vaccinated people post-approval?

"In the study, the definition of severe COVID-19 disease included laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: signs consistent with severe systemic illness, admission to an intensive care unit, respiratory failure, shock, organ failure or death, among other factors. Moderate COVID-19 disease was defined as laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: evidence of pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, shortness of breath or abnormal blood oxygen saturation above 93%, abnormal respiratory rate (≥20); or two or more systemic symptoms suggestive of COVID-19."

So, while the J&J vaccine is certainly a welcome addition to the arsenal, my thinking, based on incomplete comparative data, admittedly, is that I'd prefer the mRNA vaccines (Moderna/Pfizer) over the J&J adenovirus vector vaccine, but I would certainly take the J&J vaccine if offered, as 100% protection against death is a damn good thing, but I'd rather not go to the hospital with severe COVID.

https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson...nterim-analysis-of-its-phase-3-ensemble-trial

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/health/covid-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-variants.html

 

[Joey Bags]

I believe the Pfizer and Moderna trials included all symptoms in their 95%.

Only asymptomatic cases weren’t counted in Pfizer/Moderna. If you got a cough and tested positive, you were part of the 5%. With J&J, that wouldn’t qualify towards the efficacy number they just announced. But who really only gets a single symptom anyway?

Either way, I would like to see their efficacy including mild cases. I’m guessing it’s slightly lower....they were smart to chop it up like this.

Bottom line is it’s 1 shot and keeps people out of the hospital. If it performs better in younger people, give it to them and let the older people get the Pfizer/Moderna for the added protection.

It's great that it's keeping people out of the hospital but does it prevent the severe lung damage seen in moderate cases? Wouldn't do much if you get the vax then get covid and while you likely won't be hospitalized or die you could end up with lungs worse than a chronic smoker.

 

[RU848789]

Great numbers. Kept 100% out of the hospital. One shot. Easily stored. In many ways better than what we have now.

I doubt Pfizer and Moderna are 95% anymore.

Edit: the press release is confusing on whether 100% prevention of "hospitalization and death," meant hospitalizations, too, since the 85% prevention against severe disesase, would likely includes hospitalizations, given the definition of "severe" below. Would like to see the data...

"The vaccine candidate was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease across all regions studied, 28 days after vaccination in all adults 18 years and older. Efficacy against severe disease increased over time with no cases in vaccinated participants reported after day 49."

"In the study, the definition of severe COVID-19 disease included laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: signs consistent with severe systemic illness, admission to an intensive care unit, respiratory failure, shock, organ failure or death, among other factors."

The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine candidate demonstrated complete protection against COVID-related hospitalization and death, 28 days post-vaccination. There was a clear effect of the vaccine on COVID-19 cases requiring medical intervention (hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with no reported cases among participants who had received the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, 28 days post-vaccination.

 

[LETSGORU91]

Considering the annual flu shot is just 67% effective (2012 data via google), is 60 really that bad?

The flu shot typically does not have a 67% overall, efficacy rate and as of late, the rates have been much lower. Might average about 40% overall and in the mid 20s for those over 50 years of age. The 67%, 2012 rate you cited was the efficacy for influenza B strain. The overall flu vaccine, efficacy rate for 2012 for all strains combined was 52% as per the CDC.

2012 flu vaccine efficacy rates, CDC

 

[Upstream]

Nice write-up, but one thing I think some are overlooking is that the 100% protection against "hospitalization and death" is not 100% protection against hospitalization, which I think some think is the case. The press release says the vaccine is 85% protective against severe disease, but severe disease obviously would include hospitalization, as per below. By contrast, the Moderna vaccine was 100% protective against severe COVID and the Pfizer one was very close to that.

Now, as you said, it's quite possible some of this is comparing apples to oranges, since the Moderna/Pfizer trials were run before the new UK/SA variants had emerged. It would be nice to see post-approval data on the mRNA vaccines from South Africa/UK, against those variants (if those data even exist - I haven't seen much about post-approval data collection, other than the anaphylaxis reports from vaccines - has anyone seen data on infection rates and/or hospitalization rates for vaccinated people post-approval?

"In the study, the definition of severe COVID-19 disease included laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: signs consistent with severe systemic illness, admission to an intensive care unit, respiratory failure, shock, organ failure or death, among other factors. Moderate COVID-19 disease was defined as laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: evidence of pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, shortness of breath or abnormal blood oxygen saturation above 93%, abnormal respiratory rate (≥20); or two or more systemic symptoms suggestive of COVID-19."

So, while the J&J vaccine is certainly a welcome addition to the arsenal, my thinking, based on incomplete comparative data, admittedly, is that I'd prefer the mRNA vaccines (Moderna/Pfizer) over the J&J adenovirus vector vaccine, but I would certainly take the J&J vaccine if offered, as 100% protection against death is a damn good thing, but I'd rather not go to the hospital with severe COVID.

https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson...nterim-analysis-of-its-phase-3-ensemble-trial

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/health/covid-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-variants.html

I think you are misinterpreting the information released this morning. I interpreted it as the vaccine provided complete protection against hospitalization and complete protection against death in the trial. It provided 85% protection against severe Covid symptoms 28 days post-vaccination (although no vaccinated subjects exhibited severe symptoms after day 49). While hospitalization is one of the criteria that was used to classify a Covid infection as severe, it was not the only criteria.

From the J&J link you provided (emphasis mine):

The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine candidate demonstrated complete protection against COVID-related hospitalization and death, 28 days post-vaccination. There was a clear effect of the vaccine on COVID-19 cases requiring medical intervention (hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with no reported cases among participants who had received the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, 28 days post-vaccination.​

​

As the data is released in the next few days, we should have more clarity about what the level of protection is for severe cases.

 

[NotInRHouse]

There are counterarguments to be made, but they've been made a dozen times and won't help this thread at all. It's fine to make points about aspects of the COVID response that weren't handled well (too many to count), but the "killing" talk is counterproductive, IMO.


I know you're just giving a bit of payback here, but if you don't mind, try to keep such comments to the CE board or other threads, as this one is teetering on being locked down or moved. Also I'd say the "King Joe" stuff looks just as childish as the King Trump stuff did the last four years and stooping isn't the way to go. IMO, of course. Thanks.

I'd make a similar appeal to several other folks in the thread on both sides. There's so many more places to argue the politics of COVID. And I was guilty of it a bit too recently, which is why I'm back to scientific posts. Thanks in advance for at least listening.

Because you asked, of course. We all know the history...I couldn't resist. And even if it's only $12 or whatever, I won't give people who hate "cancel culture" the satisfaction of a dime of my money when they went out of their way to "cancel" me and others repeatedly on that board unless and until they come clean about the behind the scenes activity we all know has gone on. I will desist for now.

 

[e5fdny]

Because you asked, of course. We all know the history...I couldn't resist. And even if it's only $12 or whatever, I won't give people who hate "cancel culture" the satisfaction of a dime of my money when they went out of their way to "cancel" me and others repeatedly on that board unless and until they come clean about the behind the scenes activity we all know has gone on. I will desist for now.

A simple 👍 on your part would have sufficed.🙂

 

[RU848789]

I think you are misinterpreting the information released this morning. I interpreted it as the vaccine provided complete protection against hospitalization and complete protection against death in the trial. It provided 85% protection against severe Covid symptoms 28 days post-vaccination (although no vaccinated subjects exhibited severe symptoms after day 49). While hospitalization is one of the criteria that was used to classify a Covid infection as severe, it was not the only criteria.

From the J&J link you provided (emphasis mine):

The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine candidate demonstrated complete protection against COVID-related hospitalization and death, 28 days post-vaccination. There was a clear effect of the vaccine on COVID-19 cases requiring medical intervention (hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with no reported cases among participants who had received the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, 28 days post-vaccination.​

​

As the data is released in the next few days, we should have more clarity about what the level of protection is for severe cases.

Good point. It's possible, but if so, the language is still pretty confusing. 85% protection against "severe" cases, where severe certainly looks like hospitalization would be required: "In the study, the definition of severe COVID-19 disease included laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: signs consistent with severe systemic illness, admission to an intensive care unit, respiratory failure, shock, organ failure or death, among other factors." Just having a hard time reconciling that definition of severe and the part in bold above, which certainly says "no reported cases" (of hospitalization, 28 days post-vaccination).

They don't always write these press releases very well, as we saw with Astra-Zeneca's mess. Would like to see the data. And I have a question in to a guy who was once in my group at Merck for many years and who is now at Pfizer overseeing the manufacturing/business side of the vaccine supply chain and is very plugged into the vaccine landscape for them and competitors (I'm also asking him about post-approval data for Pfizer's vaccine on infection rates/hospitalizations, etc., especially if they have that data on the UK/SA variants).

 

[ArminRU]

Good point. It's possible, but if so, the language is still pretty confusing. 85% protection against "severe" cases, where severe certainly looks like hospitalization would be required: "In the study, the definition of severe COVID-19 disease included laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and one or more of the following: signs consistent with severe systemic illness, admission to an intensive care unit, respiratory failure, shock, organ failure or death, among other factors." Just having a hard time reconciling that definition of severe and the part in bold above, which certainly says "no reported cases" (of hospitalization, 28 days post-vaccination).

They don't always write these press releases very well, as we saw with Astra-Zeneca's mess. Would like to see the data. And I have a question in to a guy who was once in my group at Merck for many years and who is now at Pfizer overseeing the manufacturing/business side of the vaccine supply chain and is very plugged into the vaccine landscape for them and competitors (I'm also asking him about post-approval data for Pfizer's vaccine on infection rates/hospitalizations, etc., especially if they have that data on the UK/SA variants).

Severe cases do not equal hospitalizations. They are close, but if you read J&J’s definition of severe you can see how some cases may not have made it to the hospital. The definitions can be found in here

https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/covid-19-phase-3-study-clinical-protocol

 

[GORU2014]

Severe cases do not equal hospitalizations. They are close, but if you read J&J’s definition of severe you can see how some cases may not have made it to the hospital. The definitions can be found in here

https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/covid-19-phase-3-study-clinical-protocol

It’s definitely confusing—they don’t make it read like hospitalization is necessarily required but for most of those criteria it would be. Not sure about the first one involving oxygen/breathing rates.

 

[ArminRU]

It’s definitely confusing—they don’t make it read like hospitalization is necessarily required but for most of those criteria it would be. Not sure about the first one involving oxygen/breathing rates.

That’s probably a good example. Does everyone who has an oxygen level of 92% go to the hospital? Probably not. It’s scenarios like that where the difference likely lies.

 

[Joey Bags]

That’s probably a good example. Does everyone who has an oxygen level of 92% go to the hospital? Probably not. It’s scenarios like that where the difference likely lies.

Under 90% and supplemental oxygen may be warranted.

 

[e5fdny]

So are we bullish on J&J or not?

 

[GORU2014]

So are we bullish on J&J or not?

Mixed, they should have tempered expectations after the interim data IMO

 

[ArminRU]

Mixed, they should have tempered expectations after the interim data IMO

Tempered what expectations? This is the first look at efficacy.

 

[GORU2014]

Tempered what expectations? This is the first look at efficacy.

Most of the media and general public misinterpreted the interim data which showed IIRC 100% of recipients developing antibodies. It was pretty widely construed as the vaccine’s efficacy being at or near 100% which was never going to be the case.

 

[WhiteBus]

Most of the media and general public misinterpreted the interim data which showed IIRC 100% of recipients developing antibodies. It was pretty widely construed as the vaccine’s efficacy being at or near 100% which was never going to be the case.

Well that why never truly believe the media and people that have no clue.

 

[GORU2014]

Well that why never truly believe the media and people that have no clue.

I don’t know about never believe the media. I’d say never believe the media (or anyone) without doing your own research

 

[WhiteBus]

I don’t know about never believe the media. I’d say never believe the media (or anyone) without doing your own research

A lot of people didn't do the research correctly here. It was a very good result. Another life saver to the mix.

 

[GORU2014]

A lot of people didn't do the research correctly here. It was a very good result. Another life saver to the mix.

Personally wish it was higher but as many others have said here it’ll get the job done if enough people take it, which at the end of the day is good enough. Like #’s said though I’d prefer Moderna/Pfizer given the choice

 

[WhiteBus]

Personally wish it was higher but as many others have said here it’ll get the job done if enough people take it, which at the end of the day is good enough. Like #’s said though I’d prefer Moderna/Pfizer given the choice

Remember this is a one shot deal so when you see how many doses Pfzier and Moderna make cut it in half. JJ is 1 dose and onto the next person.

 

[pmvon]

It’s possible that this may be more accepted by some concerned with the new tech. Whether that right or not.

 

[ArminRU]

Most of the media and general public misinterpreted the interim data which showed IIRC 100% of recipients developing antibodies. It was pretty widely construed as the vaccine’s efficacy being at or near 100% which was never going to be the case.

Yeah definitely misinterpreted because every vaccine candidate has triggered a robust antibody response. But that doesn’t guarantee high efficacy.

I was actually predicting a 70% efficacy with a lower number for the South Africa variant. Not too far off!

 

[T2Kplus10]

So are we bullish on J&J or not?

J&J results were good (protection against infection) to very good (protection against serious cases and hospitalization).

I wonder if a second J&J shot would get it closer to the 95% of Pfizer and Moderna? I'm scheduled for Pfizer in a few weeks and perfectly happy.

Go Big Pharma!

 

[T2Kplus10]

It’s possible that this may be more accepted by some concerned with the new tech. Whether that right or not.

The one shot dose is a big convenience. I'm sure it will be used very successfully. However, Pfizer is ramping up production very quickly! Sanofi and Novartis recently signed deals to assist with production and capacity. Great news.

 

[bac2therac]

New study shows hydroxychloroquine ‘may be a benefit’ in treating the coronavirus after all - Washington Examiner

A medical study out of New Jersey shows the drug hydroxychloroquine may help people with mild symptoms of COVID-19. "We make it clear we can't recommend it to be given," said Andrew Ip, a lymphoma physician and director of the Division of Outcomes and Value Research at the John Theurer Cancer...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

A medical study out of New Jersey shows the drug hydroxychloroquine may help people with mild symptoms of COVID-19.

"We make it clear we can't recommend it to be given," said Andrew Ip, a lymphoma physician and director of the Division of Outcomes and Value Research at the John Theurer Cancer Center. "This is only an observational study. We can only recommend it in the context of a clinical trial. There may be a benefit for using this drug in an outpatient setting."

The study was conducted by Hackensack Meridian Health on outpatients in 2020 and found those who took hydroxychloroquine were less likely to end up in the hospital.

Ip said that more than 100 patients received the drug between March and May, and just over 1 in 5 patients landed in the hospital after the fact. Meanwhile, almost 1 in 3 of the more than 1,000 patients who did not receive the drug required hospitalization.

Recommended For You
The COVID-19 restrictions in every state
He added that the drug, commonly used to treat malaria, appeared to be safe.

"I've gotten messages from doctors saying it supports what they are seeing in their clinics," Ip said.

The New Jersey study’s results come after a peer-reviewed study found a drug cocktail that included hydroxychloroquine lowered hospitalizations and mortality rates of coronavirus patients.

The study found that “the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.” Only one patient died from the group of 141 being treated with the drug cocktail, while there were 13 deaths in the untreated group of 377.

The use of hydroxychloroquine sparked controversy in 2020 when former President Donald Trump touted its use for treating the virus. Some within the medical community and the media slammed the use of the drug, and Big Tech moved to censor information championing it.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also reversed its emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in June of last year.

Controversy over the drug has spilled over into 2021, with the Oklahoma attorney general’s office announcing this week it is trying to return $2 million worth of hydroxychloroquine pills after Gov. Kevin Stitt purchased the stockpile out of an abundance of caution.


"We are working with the Department of Health to try to return the stockpile," Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General spokesman Alex Gerszewski said.

 

[goru1869]

New study shows hydroxychloroquine ‘may be a benefit’ in treating the coronavirus after all - Washington Examiner

A medical study out of New Jersey shows the drug hydroxychloroquine may help people with mild symptoms of COVID-19. "We make it clear we can't recommend it to be given," said Andrew Ip, a lymphoma physician and director of the Division of Outcomes and Value Research at the John Theurer Cancer...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

A medical study out of New Jersey shows the drug hydroxychloroquine may help people with mild symptoms of COVID-19.

"We make it clear we can't recommend it to be given," said Andrew Ip, a lymphoma physician and director of the Division of Outcomes and Value Research at the John Theurer Cancer Center. "This is only an observational study. We can only recommend it in the context of a clinical trial. There may be a benefit for using this drug in an outpatient setting."

The study was conducted by Hackensack Meridian Health on outpatients in 2020 and found those who took hydroxychloroquine were less likely to end up in the hospital.

Ip said that more than 100 patients received the drug between March and May, and just over 1 in 5 patients landed in the hospital after the fact. Meanwhile, almost 1 in 3 of the more than 1,000 patients who did not receive the drug required hospitalization.

Recommended For You
The COVID-19 restrictions in every state
He added that the drug, commonly used to treat malaria, appeared to be safe.

"I've gotten messages from doctors saying it supports what they are seeing in their clinics," Ip said.

The New Jersey study’s results come after a peer-reviewed study found a drug cocktail that included hydroxychloroquine lowered hospitalizations and mortality rates of coronavirus patients.

The study found that “the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.” Only one patient died from the group of 141 being treated with the drug cocktail, while there were 13 deaths in the untreated group of 377.

The use of hydroxychloroquine sparked controversy in 2020 when former President Donald Trump touted its use for treating the virus. Some within the medical community and the media slammed the use of the drug, and Big Tech moved to censor information championing it.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also reversed its emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in June of last year.

Controversy over the drug has spilled over into 2021, with the Oklahoma attorney general’s office announcing this week it is trying to return $2 million worth of hydroxychloroquine pills after Gov. Kevin Stitt purchased the stockpile out of an abundance of caution.


"We are working with the Department of Health to try to return the stockpile," Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General spokesman Alex Gerszewski said.

YA mean President Trump was right ? I'll be damned !

 

[ArminRU]

The J&J vaccine is basically like the flu vaccine. It’s 1 shot and will ramp up country wide vaccinations tremendously.

FDA should approve this and Novavax ASAP. We should be swimming in doses by March.

 

[MulletCork]

Also the J&J vaccine being a one shot, less temperature restrictive one, clearly is a large help for poor countries that don’t have the proper infrastructure for the others. That’s not trying to be mean, just reality.