This is not full story. 65% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 but 100% efficacy against death and hospitalization due to COVID-19. So there is real benefit to it.

If nothing else, the logistics of transporting J&J make it a lot better in a lot of cases. Pfizer in particular needs to be transported super-cold, and Moderna needs to be frozen as well. J&J can be handled much more like a flu shot.

That said, I'm smarting a bit (even though I understand why) that the fully vaccinated guidelines cover 2 weeks after J&J, while it's looking likely the mRNA vaccines give you better protection even 2 weeks after the first shot. (You really do want the second... the 6-month Moderna study shows you get about 10x the antibodies from the second one, which means the protection lasts much longer if nothing else.)

The percentage efficacy can be misleading, it is not a like-for-like comparison.

https://www.vox.com/22311625/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-johns...

The limits of mRNA vaccine manufacturing are that it's a new process and the technology and supply chain required to produce it are very hard to get right. Derek Lowe does an excellent job of debunking the simplistic "Why don't they share the design" argument here:

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/02/my...

Do your research dude. It basically results in essentially 100% non-hospitalization which is the big deal, not whether you get a fever and cough a bit. I can't imagine how anyone would miss that little factoid if they read at all about the J&J vaccine before saying it's useless. Again do a little reading.

> Why is everyone worried about blood clots, and not that the J&J vaccine has a crap-tastic efficiency of 66.3%?

See "Why you can't compare Covid-19 vaccines":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A

You're welcome.

> "Why is everyone worried about blood clots, and not that the J&J vaccine has a crap-tastic efficiency of 66.3%?"

The J&J vaccine is marketed as a single-dose vaccine, unlike the others which all require two doses to reach their reported efficacy. Single-dose is a massive advantage which will greatly speed up vaccination progress, especially in developing countries.

And 66% seems pretty good for a single dose.

> And then hand that formula to the rest of the world including Brazil, India, China, and other recent new COVID hotspots so that the virus doesn't boomerang back to the US in an evolved form?

Such a vaccine would also have two doses and require intense refrigeration which are the primary issues blocking it... additionally many of those jurisdictions might not accept a US vaccine. China, maybe, since they admitted their own vaccines aren't working super well. Russia doesn't have anything wrong with its vaccine but the Kremlin admitted no one is taking it, apparently because they don't believe in covid.

> Why was this vaccine even approved, instead of just having J&J produce the same vaccine Pfizer and Moderna are making, which would be in the best interest of the world? Is this some utterly idiotic capitalism bullshit that prevents J&J from making a 94% vaccine as well?

Exactly. There should be no place for vaccine profiteering, especially now that we have two extremely good vaccines. But in the interest of pharma profits, instead of cooperatively manufacturing the best vaccines, unburdened by patent hurdles, instead we have massive amounts of public funding going to pharma corps so that they can make profits off this medical crisis. Truly shameless.