News reports are suggesting that the J&J vaccine is less effective based off a new antibody study (preprint).
But the preprint’s results don’t match real-world findings.
And I would argue that these headlines don’t match the preprint’s results either...
But the preprint’s results don’t match real-world findings.
And I would argue that these headlines don’t match the preprint’s results either...
I say that because:
1) The preprint didn't measure effectiveness but rather the antibodies’ abilities to neutralize variants
2) The preprint reported a reduction in J&J neutralization for all variants, not just delta and including the parental virus. 🧐 biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
1) The preprint didn't measure effectiveness but rather the antibodies’ abilities to neutralize variants
2) The preprint reported a reduction in J&J neutralization for all variants, not just delta and including the parental virus. 🧐 biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
Plus, there is real-world effectiveness data (aka measurements of protection against actual disease) showing that J&J ***IS***effective against the parental and alpha variants. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
That real-world effectiveness (77%) is less than Pfizer/Moderna’s (+90%), but we’ve known that pattern since the clinical trial data came out over the winter.
Something isn’t lining up with the takeaways/headlines around this new preprint.
Something isn’t lining up with the takeaways/headlines around this new preprint.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
