The Differences Between the Vaccines Matter
Public-health officials are enthusiastic about the new, single-shot COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson, despite its having a somewhat lower efficacy at preventing symptomatic illness than other available options. Although clinical-trial data peg that rate at 72 percent in the United States, compared with 94 and 95 percent for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, many experts say we shouldn’t fixate on those numbers. Much more germane, they say, is the fact that the Johnson & Johnson shot, like the other two, is essentially perfect when it comes to preventing the gravest outcomes. “I’m super-pumped about this,” Virginia’s vaccine coordinator told The New York Times last weekend. “A hundred percent efficacy against deaths and hospitalizations? That’s all I need to hear.”
The same glowing message—that the COVID-19 vaccines are all equivalent, at least where it really counts—has been getting public-health officials and pundits super-pumped for weeks now. Its potential value for promoting vaccination couldn’t be more clear: We’ll all be better off, and this nightmare will be over sooner, if people know that the best vaccine of all is whichever one they can get the soonest. With that in mind, Vox has urged its readers to attend to “”—the fact that “there have been zero cases of hospitalization or death in clinical trials for of these vaccines.” The physician and CNN medical analyst Leana Wen also made a point of noting that “” in this regard. And half a dozen former members of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote in , “Varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalizations and death.”
You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.
Start your free 30 days