ADVERTISEMENT

Fish, Question on boosters.

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
11,901
11,702
1
So i had the J&J vaccine. I am following the discussion closely today regarding boosters. What I can gather is the following
Pfizer and Moderna start off with a high efficacy and it drops pretty sharply at 6-8 months. J&J starts lower but seems to be pretty steady.. One of the things I think you have said is the memory cells [T cells?] are what help fight the virus once you get it. I think I would be reluctant to do a mix and match. What are your thoughts on the J&J technology in general and their booster specific. Just an opinion I understand.
 
So i had the J&J vaccine. I am following the discussion closely today regarding boosters. What I can gather is the following
Pfizer and Moderna start off with a high efficacy and it drops pretty sharply at 6-8 months. J&J starts lower but seems to be pretty steady.. One of the things I think you have said is the memory cells [T cells?] are what help fight the virus once you get it. I think I would be reluctant to do a mix and match. What are your thoughts on the J&J technology in general and their booster specific. Just an opinion I understand.
I listened to a ten-minute segment on NPR yesterday. They were saying preliminary findings are the mixing the manufacturers' shots seem to be better than getting shots from one provider exclusively. However, they weren't done with the studies yet. So while there was no apparent problem with mixing shots, they haven't gotten around to completing any comprehensive studies with control groups and peer reviews.




SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST:
Since public health experts first started talking about COVID-19 vaccine boosters, people have wondered, is it best for vaccinated folks to get the same vaccine for their booster as they did for their initial shots? Or would it be better to mix things up and get a different vaccine as a booster? A highly anticipated study has produced some provocative answers. And joining us now with all the details is NPR health correspondent Rob Stein. Hi, Rob.
ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Hey there, Sarah.
MCCAMMON: OK, so you've got me wondering, what did they find?
STEIN: The bottom line is if you got either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine, it looks like a Pfizer or a Moderna shot would work well as your booster. Moderna seems to work the best, but not all that much better than Pfizer. So if Pfizer or Moderna was your first vaccine, it doesn't look like it matters very much as long as their booster is another one of these so-called mRNA vaccines.
But if you got the J&J vaccine, it really looks like you'd get the best response if you don't get another J&J. The best is either getting Moderna or Pfizer next. The levels of so-called neutralizing antibodies in people who got one of those shot up 10 to 20 times higher than if they just had another J&J shot. And that's probably a big enough difference to provide stronger protection. How much stronger isn't known. This study wasn't large enough to see how things like, you know, how sick people would get or how much - you know, if they would get sick at all. But based on other research, that's probably enough to make a significant difference.
MCCAMMON: So it sounds like better results with Moderna or Pfizer. How did they arrive at this conclusion, Rob?
STEIN: Yeah, it comes from a big study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health that was designed to see whether people should get the same vaccine as a booster or instead should, you know, like you said, mix it up this time. The researchers divided 458 volunteers who initially got either Moderna, Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson into different groups. They either got the same vaccine as their booster or got one of the other two instead four to six months later. The researchers then measured their antibodies two and four weeks after the boosters, and the results were these really interesting findings.
MCCAMMON: And so for people looking to get a booster, what does all this mean?
STEIN: Yeah, you know, the first thing I should mention is that there are some caveats to this study that make it a little hard to know how to interpret. First of all, the researchers tested full doses of all the vaccines, not the half dose that Moderna is seeking authorization for its booster. Also, they measured antibody levels two and four weeks after their booster. So there's a chance antibody levels from a J&J booster could continue to rise with more time. Or, you know, the antibodies from the others could fall faster. And they're assuming that antibody levels translate into more protection. That's probably true, but other factors may also play a role, such as how other parts of the immune system respond.
All that said, this does suggest that people who got the J&J would benefit the most from getting one of the mRNA vaccines next time around, perhaps because using an entirely different kind of vaccine just does a better job of, you know, amping up the immune system.
MCCAMMON: OK, you're talking about mixing things up, Rob, but that's not what the company is asking the FDA to do, is it?
STEIN: Yeah, that's right. J&J is seeking authorization for a second one of its own shots. And the company is saying the protection from its vaccine looks like it is more long-lasting. So, you know, it'll be interesting to see what advisers to the Food and Drug Administration who are meeting starting tomorrow to make recommendations to the agency do with this information. The FDA seems to be questioning how strong the company's evidence is for its booster, but perhaps the FDA could OK a J&J booster but say, you know, using one of the others as a booster could be a better option whenever they're available.
MCCAMMON: NPR health correspondent Rob Stein, thanks.
STEIN: You bet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and Zenophile
So i had the J&J vaccine. I am following the discussion closely today regarding boosters. What I can gather is the following
Pfizer and Moderna start off with a high efficacy and it drops pretty sharply at 6-8 months. J&J starts lower but seems to be pretty steady.. One of the things I think you have said is the memory cells [T cells?] are what help fight the virus once you get it. I think I would be reluctant to do a mix and match. What are your thoughts on the J&J technology in general and their booster specific. Just an opinion I understand.

There isn't any data that I've seen to suggest that Moderna "drops pretty sharply" in 6-8 months like Pfizer does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
Currently the medical recommendation is to maintain brand consistency with the booster. Full disclosure: I'm not aware of the research on which this recommendation is based, just that this is where medicine is parked at the moment.
 
I listened to a ten-minute segment on NPR yesterday. They were saying preliminary findings are the mixing the manufacturers' shots seem to be better than getting shots from one provider exclusively. However, they weren't done with the studies yet. So while there was no apparent problem with mixing shots, they haven't gotten around to completing any comprehensive studies with control groups and peer reviews.




SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST:
Since public health experts first started talking about COVID-19 vaccine boosters, people have wondered, is it best for vaccinated folks to get the same vaccine for their booster as they did for their initial shots? Or would it be better to mix things up and get a different vaccine as a booster? A highly anticipated study has produced some provocative answers. And joining us now with all the details is NPR health correspondent Rob Stein. Hi, Rob.
ROB STEIN, BYLINE: Hey there, Sarah.
MCCAMMON: OK, so you've got me wondering, what did they find?
STEIN: The bottom line is if you got either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine, it looks like a Pfizer or a Moderna shot would work well as your booster. Moderna seems to work the best, but not all that much better than Pfizer. So if Pfizer or Moderna was your first vaccine, it doesn't look like it matters very much as long as their booster is another one of these so-called mRNA vaccines.
But if you got the J&J vaccine, it really looks like you'd get the best response if you don't get another J&J. The best is either getting Moderna or Pfizer next. The levels of so-called neutralizing antibodies in people who got one of those shot up 10 to 20 times higher than if they just had another J&J shot. And that's probably a big enough difference to provide stronger protection. How much stronger isn't known. This study wasn't large enough to see how things like, you know, how sick people would get or how much - you know, if they would get sick at all. But based on other research, that's probably enough to make a significant difference.
MCCAMMON: So it sounds like better results with Moderna or Pfizer. How did they arrive at this conclusion, Rob?
STEIN: Yeah, it comes from a big study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health that was designed to see whether people should get the same vaccine as a booster or instead should, you know, like you said, mix it up this time. The researchers divided 458 volunteers who initially got either Moderna, Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson into different groups. They either got the same vaccine as their booster or got one of the other two instead four to six months later. The researchers then measured their antibodies two and four weeks after the boosters, and the results were these really interesting findings.
MCCAMMON: And so for people looking to get a booster, what does all this mean?
STEIN: Yeah, you know, the first thing I should mention is that there are some caveats to this study that make it a little hard to know how to interpret. First of all, the researchers tested full doses of all the vaccines, not the half dose that Moderna is seeking authorization for its booster. Also, they measured antibody levels two and four weeks after their booster. So there's a chance antibody levels from a J&J booster could continue to rise with more time. Or, you know, the antibodies from the others could fall faster. And they're assuming that antibody levels translate into more protection. That's probably true, but other factors may also play a role, such as how other parts of the immune system respond.
All that said, this does suggest that people who got the J&J would benefit the most from getting one of the mRNA vaccines next time around, perhaps because using an entirely different kind of vaccine just does a better job of, you know, amping up the immune system.
MCCAMMON: OK, you're talking about mixing things up, Rob, but that's not what the company is asking the FDA to do, is it?
STEIN: Yeah, that's right. J&J is seeking authorization for a second one of its own shots. And the company is saying the protection from its vaccine looks like it is more long-lasting. So, you know, it'll be interesting to see what advisers to the Food and Drug Administration who are meeting starting tomorrow to make recommendations to the agency do with this information. The FDA seems to be questioning how strong the company's evidence is for its booster, but perhaps the FDA could OK a J&J booster but say, you know, using one of the others as a booster could be a better option whenever they're available.
MCCAMMON: NPR health correspondent Rob Stein, thanks.
STEIN: You bet.
Thanks I had heard that as well. Full disclosure I have a built in bias against Moderna as that is Fauci's baby and I don't trust that guy at all. So regarding the studies a study of only 450 people divided up 3 ways seems quite small but that isn't my area of expertise at all. I also read it has a few flaws which weren't explained. I also read J&J tested 30,000 with much different and better results [it was from J&J after all] but it also had some flaws. Hence my question.
Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
Here you go. We could dig up a bunch of other articles that state something different but I'll go with this one.

"The most significant finding suggested that people who initially got the J&J vaccine seem to have gotten the best response if they got Pfizer or Moderna as their booster."

EDIT: Here's another quote from the article which bolsters my preference of getting a J&J booster. I had Pfizer initially.

"For its part, J&J said the "study demonstrated that a booster of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine increases immune response regardless of a person's primary vaccination and confirm previously published data on the strong increase of immune response when the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine is administered as a booster shot."
Thanks As I said below I am dubious of anything from NIH that is pro Moderna. Also as I understand that study was only 458 people for all 3 vaccines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
Thanks I had heard that as well. Full disclosure I have a built in bias against Moderna as that is Fauci's baby and I don't trust that guy at all. So regarding the studies a study of only 450 people divided up 3 ways seems quite small but that isn't my area of expertise at all. I also read it has a few flaws which weren't explained. I also read J&J tested 30,000 with much different and better results [it was from J&J after all] but it also had some flaws. Hence my question.
Thanks
so, I agree with everything you just wrote. however, it adds up to the conclusion that nobody knows yet. The studies haven't been completed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
There isn't any data that I've seen to suggest that Moderna "drops pretty sharply" in 6-8 months like Pfizer does.
From CNN health. "Moderna demonstrated a higher peak efficiency than Pfizer but also had a DRAMATIC DROP after 6 months." It seems like a double edge sword. If it drops dramatically then it is like Pfizer, if it doesn't drop dramatically why do we need a booster.? [The J&J argument] It seems like Moderna, Fauci, and NIH want it both ways.
 
From CNN health. "Moderna demonstrated a higher peak efficiency than Pfizer but also had a DRAMATIC DROP after 6 months." It seems like a double edge sword. If it drops dramatically then it is like Pfizer, if it doesn't drop dramatically why do we need a booster.? [The J&J argument] It seems like Moderna, Fauci, and NIH want it both ways.
..and if the vaxed and unvaxed are equally viral why are vaxed people feeling threatened by the unvaxed?

...if you've survived COVID, why do you need to be vaxed at all?

..why is a driveway where you park and where you park called a parkway?
 
Crap, I've been tricked...the OP just wants to argue, not have his question addressed. I'll delete my posts and not be back in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nitt1300
Well, 30 people in each group, randomly selected of course, would do it for me, but I've only taken about 21 credits of statistics so I'm not the expert. I did however have statisticians reporting through my organization for years and they were experts.
Met a sage old businessman who I met in my travels last week, who told me while discussing this topic..."there are lies, there are DAMN lies,...and then there are STATISTICS...

He made me laugh hard...
 
Well, 30 people in each group, randomly selected of course, would do it for me, but I've only taken about 21 credits of statistics so I'm not the expert. I did however have statisticians reporting through my organization for years and they were experts.
Now now no need to get snarky. I am not a statistician so perhaps you can help me. So we have a virus that infects maybe 1 in 10 people. Of thos 1 in 10 maybe 5 out of 100 get seriously ill. [if you disagree pick your own numbers. You probably have 6 distinct groups 0-12 yrs of age 12-18 yrs of age 18 -50 yrs of age 50-65 yrs of age, 65+ and immuno comprised at any age. So we have a virus that serious affects .5% of the population and affects 6 different groups differently and 30 random participants is enough? hmm you'll need to splain that one to me.

Oh and have these studies lasted long enough to know what happens in 6 more months? Is this looking like a twice a year booster?
 
What about the converse? If you had Moderna/Pfizer first would getting a J/J booster provide a better immune response?
Interesting question. J&J apparently is less effective but longer lasting. Maybe some combo is better. Unlike Agoodnap 458 people seems like a small study. but also unlike agoodnap I am not a statistician.
 
..and if the vaxed and unvaxed are equally viral why are vaxed people feeling threatened by the unvaxed?

...if you've survived COVID, why do you need to be vaxed at all?

..why is a driveway where you park and where you park called a parkway?
I think we'll know the answer to your 3rd question before the others.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Obliviax
Interesting question. J&J apparently is less effective but longer lasting. Maybe some combo is better. Unlike Agoodnap 458 people seems like a small study. but also unlike agoodnap I am not a statistician.

FYI, FDA advisory committee just recommended approval of JnJ booster for EVERYONE over 18 after TWO months. Basically, this is an admission that JnJ should have been a two shot regimen from the start.

edit: added link... https://www.barrons.com/articles/j-...y-committee-heres-what-comes-next-51634320452
 
Last edited:
Crap, I've been tricked...the OP just wants to argue, not have his question addressed. I'll delete my posts and not be back in this thread.
See you later but for the record I simply don't want to argue. i also won't believe the first thing i read particularly if it can be biased. If you don't think NIH has a vested interest in Moderna do some research. I ahve read both the J&J internal research and the NIH study has flaws. I don't know what they are.hence my question.
I am surprised that after so many mis statements
efficacy levels only last 6 months
if you are vaccinated you likely won't catch or spread the virus
just to name the most obvious you are a little curious.

Before you label me, I am vaccinated and I will get a booster if it makes sense.
 
FYI, FDA advisory committee just recommended approval of JnJ booster for EVERYONE over 18 after TWO months. Basically, this is an admission that JnJ should have been a two shot regimen from the start.
So be it. Not sure why but since I survived the 1st J&J w/o incident I feel better about sticking with that one. I am at the 7 month mark so I'll probably read a little more before I go.
Regarding it should have been a 2 shot all along. is there any data that the J&J folks have fared worse than the others? Also if it had been a 2 shot all along would we be okay today or need a 3rd one.?

I would add this. For some [my wife in particular] the thought of getting an "mRNA" vaccine was much scarier than than the vector virus of J&J so to some extent some portion of those 15 million J&j recipients likely would not have got vaccinated at all so it is a net positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
See you later but for the record I simply don't want to argue. i also won't believe the first thing i read particularly if it can be biased. If you don't think NIH has a vested interest in Moderna do some research. I ahve read both the J&J internal research and the NIH study has flaws. I don't know what they are.hence my question.
I am surprised that after so many mis statements
efficacy levels only last 6 months
if you are vaccinated you likely won't catch or spread the virus
just to name the most obvious you are a little curious.

Before you label me, I am vaccinated and I will get a booster if it makes sense.
well, to be fair, Delta Variant changed the game. The vaccines have great benefit, they clearly have flattened the curve over a longer period of time and apparently have lowered the severity of infection to some extent. I suspect that we won't be out of the woods on this until natural immunity has its ways. So I suspect several years with slowly declining rates, directionally. That assumes we don't see a new variant, of course.

The real problem is that there is no standard for when the pandemic is over. Masks, vaccines, sheltering in place...these arguments will rage forever. We'll see reports that the virus is raging is Piscataway while no reports of it ceasing in Pacific Palisades.

The bottom line is that you've got to do your own research, consider your own risk profile, and make your best decisions. This is where I was in June of 2020 and it hasn't changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
From CNN health. "Moderna demonstrated a higher peak efficiency than Pfizer but also had a DRAMATIC DROP after 6 months." It seems like a double edge sword. If it drops dramatically then it is like Pfizer, if it doesn't drop dramatically why do we need a booster.? [The J&J argument] It seems like Moderna, Fauci, and NIH want it both ways.

LOL.. so you pay attention to CNN now??

Here's just one study, there are more, Moderna at 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, compared to 77% and 68% for the other two. Does that fit the definition of a "DRAMATIC DROP"?



Vaccine/Period​
Vaccinated patients/Total patients (%)​
VE against COVID-19 hospitalization (95% CI)​
Case-patients​
Control-patients​
Moderna VE after full vaccination
Full surveillance period§​
54/1,517 (3.6)​
422/1,321 (31.9)​
93 (91–95)​
14–120 days after full vaccination​
36/1,499 (2.4)​
345/1,244 (27.7)​
93 (90–95)​
>120 days after full vaccination​
18/1,481 (1.2)​
77/976 (7.9)​
92 (87–96)​
Pfizer-BioNTech VE after full vaccination
Full surveillance period​
128/1,591 (8.0)​
610/1,509 (40.4)​
88 (85–91)​
14–120 days after full vaccination​
65/1,528 (4.3)​
495/1,394 (35.5)​
91 (88–93)​
>120 days after full vaccination​
63/1,526 (4.1)​
115/1,014 (11.3)​
77 (67–84)​
Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) VE after full vaccination
Full surveillance period​
37/1,500 (2.5)​
76/975 (7.8)​
71 (56–81)​
>28 days after full vaccination​
33/1,496 (2.2)​
59/958 (6.2)​
68 (49–80)​
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89
My wife and I got our 1st shots in February and our Moderna boosters about a month ago. I know the CDC hadn't recommended it yet, but pharmacies in our area were giving them no questions asked.
 
LOL.. so you pay attention to CNN now??

Here's just one study, there are more, Moderna at 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, compared to 77% and 68% for the other two. Does that fit the definition of a "DRAMATIC DROP"?



Case-patients​
Control-patients​
Vaccine/Period​
Vaccinated patients/Total patients (%)​
VE against COVID-19 hospitalization (95% CI)​
Moderna VE after full vaccination
Full surveillance period§​
54/1,517 (3.6)​
422/1,321 (31.9)​
93 (91–95)​
14–120 days after full vaccination​
36/1,499 (2.4)​
345/1,244 (27.7)​
93 (90–95)​
>120 days after full vaccination​
18/1,481 (1.2)​
77/976 (7.9)​
92 (87–96)​
Pfizer-BioNTech VE after full vaccination
Full surveillance period​
128/1,591 (8.0)​
610/1,509 (40.4)​
88 (85–91)​
14–120 days after full vaccination​
65/1,528 (4.3)​
495/1,394 (35.5)​
91 (88–93)​
>120 days after full vaccination​
63/1,526 (4.1)​
115/1,014 (11.3)​
77 (67–84)​
Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) VE after full vaccination
Full surveillance period​
37/1,500 (2.5)​
76/975 (7.8)​
71 (56–81)​
>28 days after full vaccination​
33/1,496 (2.2)​
59/958 (6.2)​
68 (49–80)​
Lol you make a good point on CNN. But since they are in St Fauci’s pocket anything the least bit critical must be legit. Regarding dramatic drop off the author’s words not mine. So at 92% efficacy no need for a booster right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13
Lol you make a good point on CNN. But since they are in St Fauci’s pocket anything the least bit critical must be legit. Regarding dramatic drop off the author’s words not mine. So at 92% efficacy no need for a booster right?

Why does it seemingly concern you that boosters are or might be recommended? Anyway, one obvious answer, a booster will likely reduce infections and bring us closer to true herd immunity. You are more than welcome to use all the anti-vax loser arguments for the booster if you wish.
 
From CNN health. "Moderna demonstrated a higher peak efficiency than Pfizer but also had a DRAMATIC DROP after 6 months." It seems like a double edge sword. If it drops dramatically then it is like Pfizer, if it doesn't drop dramatically why do we need a booster.? [The J&J argument] It seems like Moderna, Fauci, and NIH want it both ways.

Stockholders and royalty holders love guaranteed revenue streams.
 
You’re not going to get good information about boosters on a Penn State message board. Go to Eleven Worriers. Tosu athletic supporters there will hook you up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
Why does it seemingly concern you that boosters are or might be recommended? Anyway, one obvious answer, a booster will likely reduce infections and bring us closer to true herd immunity. You are more than welcome to use all the anti-vax loser arguments for the booster if you wish.
Ok, let's unpack your post a little.
"use your anti vax arguments" do you guys even read what people post. I started. by saying i was vaccinated. Later in the thread I said I am interested in the boosters. good grief
"why does it concern you what might be recommended" - I also said my wife was/is leery of mRNA. I myself am leery of mix and match. So am trying to understand the difference between the three and what are the various arguments.
What is really goofy is you guys who label anyone who has a question or cites different studies as an "anti vaxxer".
Hmmm that study of 458 people seems small - Response you are an anti vaxxer.
Moderna shows these results - Well J&J showed different results any explanation? Response you are an anti vaxxer.

One final question. If a vaccine helps keep us alive but DOESN'T stop us catching or spreading the virus how does that help us get to herd immunity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
One final question. If a vaccine helps keep us alive but DOESN'T stop us catching or spreading the virus how does that help us get to herd immunity?

You show how misinformed you are by asking that question.

ps.. I got that you are already vaccinated, I think you ask a lot of questions but you don't/won't pay attention to the answers, because you've got your mind made up.
 
Last edited:
You show how misinformed you are by asking that question.

ps.. I got that you are already vaccinated, I think you ask a lot of questions but you don't/won't pay attention to the answers, because you've got your mind made up.
Well i do know the answer. The only way to get to herd immunity is if the vaccines keep us alive long enough that we all get Covid survive it and develop natural immunities. I think my mind is close to made but it what way do you think. After today I think I am going to opt for the J&J booster. is that what you meant by made up?

btw to you and the other poster who said 30 people from each vaccine group would be enough and he had 21 credits of statistics to prove it, part of the FDA testimony today suggested the NIH study you guys all referenced was too small and the randomness of it did not allow for a proper sampling of all the variables at play to be properly analyzed. i think that is what I was suggesting in this whole thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777
Well i do know the answer. The only way to get to herd immunity is if the vaccines keep us alive long enough that we all get Covid survive it and develop natural immunities. I think my mind is close to made but it what way do you think. After today I think I am going to opt for the J&J booster. is that what you meant by made up?

btw to you and the other poster who said 30 people from each vaccine group would be enough and he had 21 credits of statistics to prove it, part of the FDA testimony today suggested the NIH study you guys all referenced was too small and the randomness of it did not allow for a proper sampling of all the variables at play to be properly analyzed. i think that is what I was suggesting in this whole thread.
The study I linked involved thousands, what are you talking about?
 
Ok, let's unpack your post a little.
"use your anti vax arguments" do you guys even read what people post. I started. by saying i was vaccinated. Later in the thread I said I am interested in the boosters. good grief
"why does it concern you what might be recommended" - I also said my wife was/is leery of mRNA. I myself am leery of mix and match. So am trying to understand the difference between the three and what are the various arguments.
What is really goofy is you guys who label anyone who has a question or cites different studies as an "anti vaxxer".
Hmmm that study of 458 people seems small - Response you are an anti vaxxer.
Moderna shows these results - Well J&J showed different results any explanation? Response you are an anti vaxxer.

One final question. If a vaccine helps keep us alive but DOESN'T stop us catching or spreading the virus how does that help us get to herd immunity?
 
The study I linked involved thousands, what are you talking about?
So the NPR report that referred to 458 folks being studied by NIH and referenced twice in. this thread is what I was referring too. Not to quibble with your thousands in your study that is slightly misleading. They studied about 3700 folks. 2000 were UNVACCINATED 476 had Moderna 738 had Pfizer and 113 had J&J so still not a huge study group. My bigger concern with that study was the VE for all 3 were very similar to the efficacy numbers they all had when approved.[Moderna 92% Pfizer about 88% and J&J around 71%. from memory] If those numbers are still true 2 months later why the hullabaloo about waning efficacy and the need for a booster. If M and P are still hovering around 90% why do we need boosters. Maybe you could argue Jansen as a second shot to get it above 70%. Not being a smartass but if you have a vaccine that is still 90% effective we sure as hell do not need a booster of it do we?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777
ADVERTISEMENT