Read on Twitter
The interesting comparison to me is not between JNJ's vaccine and the RNA vaccines, but between it and WKV (inactivated virus) vaccines, because they are similar in efficacy. JNJ has 66% block of moderate disease and 85% block of severe disease. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/health/covid-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-variants.html
Sinovac had 50% efficacy for all disease, 78% for moderate disease, and reportedly 100% block of severe disease. Hmm, that actually sounds better than JNJ's disease? So how was that news greeted? As a disappointment. See below. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/business/chinese-vaccine-brazil-sinovac.html
So when Sinovac's old-school vaccine blocked moderate/severe disease by 78%/100%, these were "tepid results" and a "disappointment" per the NYTimes. But when JNJ blocks moderate/severe disease by 66%/85%, this is "strong protection". https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/health/covid-vaccine-johnson-and-johnson-variants.html
NYTimes even found a researcher who claimed “This was one of the reasons the Americans and Europeans didn’t go with this older technology."
No, not at all. There was no way researchers *knew* that any of the newer technologies (RNA, Ad, MV) would work better than killed virus.
No, not at all. There was no way researchers *knew* that any of the newer technologies (RNA, Ad, MV) would work better than killed virus.
For one thing, killed virus presents all SARSCoV2 antigens, so you don't risk choosing a suboptimal one. Also the Ad- and MV-based vaccines risk focusing immunity on the more numerous Ad or MV antigens than on the SARSCoV2 antigen. And indeed Merck's MV-based vaccine failed.
US press coverage of vaccines has definitely been aligned to what the companies say. At the beginning the Western company approaches were touted with great excitement and inactivated virus not even mentioned. When inactivated virus results appeared, their results were "weak"
When worse results from JNJ now appear they are described as "strong". Sure, how efficacy was assessed may be different, but we're just talking about how the press reacts to top-line numbers based on who is producing them rather than on how the numbers actually compare.
When one-dose Pfizer gives >80% protection, the press says that's weak and can allow selection for resistance (never mind that current spike mutants came from nonvaccinated populations *because* virus has the opportunity to go through replication in unvaccinated people)
But when two-dose Moderna produces 6-fold weaker antibody responses for the variant from B.1.351 South Africa, then we don't need to worry because it's still good enough. So basically there's a nice correlation between headlines and what is most advantageous to pharma companies.
Basically press organizations could have chosen between evaluating research results in a consistent way across stories (e.g. hire a good science editor), or just believe the talking points they are handed by Western pharmaceutical companies. It's clear which they've chosen.
Big-picture: Ad (JNJ, AZN) and WKV (Sinovac, Sinopharm) vaccines prevent death (great!) and are easy to store and produce. The advantages are widely touted today for JNJ, but didn't get so hyped for AZN and WKV. Maybe random, or maybe JNJ is a home-team favorite for the press.
