All Vaccines Are Not Created Equal
The J&J vaccine is especially useful for marginalized populations. Did that make it easier to suspend its use?
In the wake of regulators’ lifting the suspension of the J&J vaccine (which I wrote about recently), states across the country have quickly resumed giving people the shot. This is obviously good news, particularly given that the pace of vaccination in the U.S. has been slowing of late. But it also points to the fact that J&J’s shot is not just a bit player in the U.S.’s vaccination campaign. Instead, it’s filling a role that the mRNA vaccines are not, allowing public-health officials to reach underserved populations that otherwise might be hard to vaccinate. And yet this very fact, paradoxically, may have made it easier for regulators to suspend its use for as long as they did.
The J&J vaccine appeals to some people because it’s a conventional vaccine, rather than being a newfangled mRNA vaccine, which some people are wary of (even though the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines appear to be safer than the J&J and AstraZeneca shots). But its real advantage is simpler: it only requires one shot, while the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require two. That’s appealing to people who are afraid of needles (of whom there are more than you might imagine). But it’s especially useful for another…