The Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use in the United States is wonderful and welcome news. Its addition dramatically increases the likelihood that all adults will have a chance to be vaccinated before this summer — but only if people are willing to accept any of the three available vaccines.
That will happen only if people trust that the different vaccines are being distributed fairly.
To recap: The FDA has granted emergency use authorization to three Covid-19 vaccines. The first was for a vaccine developed by a partnership between Pfizer and BioNTech, soon followed by one developed by Moderna. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine makes three. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines, both of which require two doses spaced a few weeks apart, initially needed to be stored at ultra-cold temperatures, though this has recently been eased. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which isn’t mRNA-based, requires just a single dose and has long-term stability at refrigerator temperatures.
The features of the newly authorized vaccine will increase the efficiency of immunization programs. From an equity perspective, these same features could also help address many vaccine roadblocks, such as resource constraints in the health care system and geographic barriers to health care access, that have been identified in indices such as the Covid-19 Vaccine Coverage Index.
At the same time, however, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine raises different equity concerns.
Before the ink was dry on the FDA authorization, news reports about differences between the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna began to circulate, fueling concerns that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might be inferior. Although the J&J vaccine offered complete protection against hospitalization and death in the U.S. trial, rivaling that of the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, it showed somewhat lower protection against less-severe disease.
While these differences are difficult to interpret because of differences in timing and in definition of outcomes between the trials conducted to test each of the vaccines, they have been enough to cause concern among some people.
People of color, as well as low-income and rural Americans, live in communities where roadblocks to vaccination are most prevalent. Using only one type of vaccine when three are available may create suspicion in these communities, especially when that vaccine is wrongly perceived as second-class.
Targeting the single-dose vaccine to hard-to-reach populations could easily be interpreted as evidence that, once again, the disadvantaged and disproportionately burdened are getting substandard care. This understandable interpretation, given the history and ongoing experience of structural injustice in American health care and public health, threatens to increase distrust in vaccines and the vaccination program.
At a time when many people, including those from disadvantaged groups, are questioning whether they want to be vaccinated against Covid-19, differential access to what are perceived as superior vaccines risks deepening distrust and exacerbating existing inequities in Covid-19 vaccine rollout.
These are risks the country cannot afford to take. To forestall any perception that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is inferior or is being targeted to disadvantaged people, immunization programs should start with the presumption that the J&J and either the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines will be made available to all communities. Deploying the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in well-resourced areas will help contain the pernicious public health and equity implications of the narrative that it is a second-class vaccine.
In some communities or populations with fewer resources, there may be circumstances where the advantages of a single-dose, refrigerator-stable vaccine could be essential for efficiently meeting vaccine needs. Yet any determination to offer only one type of vaccine in a community should be made in consultation with community leaders and advocates — and with their endorsement. While it is always good practice for immunization programs to work in concert with local communities, in the case of Covid-19 vaccination it is imperative.
On March 16, 2020, the very first subject was enrolled in a Covid-19 vaccine trial. In the following 12 months, we lost over 500,000 Americans, an unimaginable tragedy. Remarkably, in that same time period, the combined efforts of scientists, governments, companies, and trial participants from around the world has now given us access to three vaccines that together would allow the U.S. to immunize its entire population and prevent additional suffering and death. But we will only reach this goal if we resolve to use all of these vaccines in what is, and what is perceived to be, the fairest way possible.
Ruth R. Faden is the founder and inaugural director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Ruth A. Karron is director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Immunization Research and founder of the Johns Hopkins Vaccine Initiative.
it is simple and is all about the math and herd immunity whether it is 70, 80 or 90% of the quicker the percentage is achieved the quicker the spread and dying of citizens will slow or eventually stop
I feel a great deal of skepticism of the claims made here. I fully understand there may be some people who will act in accordance with what the author’s claim is the group psychology. Some people will be offended if offered the “inferior” vaccine, I do not doubt. The authors however do not limit their claims to some people – they claim, some subset of people, and am I wrong to assume they mean black people and Latinos? – will be offended and not take the J&J shot . But they offer no proof of this – not even any kind of attitude survey soft social science data – much less actually showing higher declination.
So, I am a white guy, from the upper middle class, who is old enough to join AARP – and I have no objections to the J&J – as best I can tell, while slightly less effective against the first wave type, it might be better against the variants – so I might prefer it, failing some solid data on the other two being better. ?????
So, I do not pretend to know the psychology of other ethnic groups, but I doubt everyone in them is so irrational as to refuse protection because, I guess, the feel “dissed” ? Even if I DID fully believe I was being offered a slightly less effective vaccine – which again may not be true at all depending on efficacy against B1351 and P1 – I would gladly take it because if I do, my protection starts that much sooner.
Another claim that I am very skeptical of is non-white people have vaccines less available to them. Is there any basis for that at all? I mean, there are a few native groups which live in rural areas which may be far from the super cold freezers, but that is a tiny number of all non-white people.
I was accidentally in a vaccine line at a sports arena in a very black city the other day – the line extended into the street and so I drove by – the neighborhood is black and Latino – the line was white people – who had to drive at least 10 minutes to get there – I can not see how vaccine is less available to folks who can walk ten minutes to get there then to people who live much further away. ???
Right now, it seems, whites and Asians are either better at, or more dedicated to, getting the vaccines than other groups -but is that really a problem which needs fixing? I mean, we do not have enough vaccines, and anyone who wants to can jump into this anarchy, so???
Comments are closed.