Similar to the J&J Jassen vaccine -- it is hard to give-away the AstraZeneca vaccine. Countries want mRNA COVID vaccines which are more effective and have fewer side-effects (e.g. blood clots). Canada to donate almost 18 million surplus AstraZeneca doses to low- and middle-income countries https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covax-donations-astrazeneca-surplus-1.6099072
Are you saying that the J&J vaccine is similar to the AstraZeneca in that it’s not an mRNA vaccine or are you trying to falsely imply people can’t give away the J&J. There’s no issues with the J&J.
There are multiple examples of countries rejecting the J&J vaccine -- the latest country being Zimbabwe. (Post below from the Latest Vaccine News thread where other examples can be found). Both AstraZeneca and J&J Janseen COVID vaccines are less effective than mRNA vaccines. They both are similar in formula and due to this have an issue with blood clots (although rare) - which is why many countries do not recommend either for people under 60 years of age (examples - Italy, Germany, Spain & Belgium for AstraZeneca or Belgium halts J&J for under 41s) It should also be noted that the majority of available J&J vaccine doses floating around the face of the earth are from the Emergent BioSolutions plant in Maryland which the U.S. discarded as tainted. Apparently most of the tainted vaccines never made it to the trash can.
How fortunate for Moderna and Pfizer. It’s amazing the adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines are completely ignored by the media.
Actually the information on adverse effects with mRNA COVID vaccines have been closely followed in the media. Now let's ask a question -- which would rather have: A COVID vaccine with 95% efficacy with a very, very low chance of a mild case of myocarditis which normally does not need medical treatment. OR a COVID vaccine with a 78% efficacy with a very low chance of enduring a blood clot which will require medical treatment.
The J and J is less effective "as administered" ie. in one shot which was their goal. However, trials are in progress or might have been completed by now (started late April I think) to see what the results from 2-doses look like. Would not surprise me if the results from two doses were very good but they got approval for one shot and so they may or may not want to move away from that strategy for marketing reasons. But I have no reason yet to conclude that - ounce for ounce- the J and J vaccine is less effective. Only that they chose to administer it differently.
Effectiveness is about on par and side effects have been overblown. I suspect it's been done so to subsidize J&J and AZ to other countries w/o people bitching about handouts. If you tell them "it's not safe, let's give them away instead" it's an easier sell. Conventional vax also create a wider spectrum of antibodies and are likely to better protect against mutations as mRNA vax is targeted. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news...nson-vaccine-is-more-effective-than-you-think https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/science/covid-vaccine-virus-resistance.html the side effects of mRNA are mild and non-fatal unlike the current conventional vax, which granted are rare.
Taking the AZ vaccine out of the discussion. The J&J vaccine’s blood clotting issues are next to nill. There’s many more heart and coronary problems with the mRNA’s. Discussion on efficacy is debated but the J&J is 99.5% effective on keeping you out of the hospital, which is the goal., or was before the Delta which none have been really stacked against. Also the J&J was tested on different variants unlike the early testing of the Moderna/Pfiser. The J&J is perfectly capable of protecting you.
Lol, all this discussion and now this. FDA warns on potential Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine link to rare disorder The warning comes after 100 preliminary reports of Guillain-Barre occurred against a backdrop of about 12.5 million Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients https://www.foxnews.com/health/fda-warn-potential-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine-link-guillain-barre