[YossarianFrPrez]

The Johnson and Johnson shot is not an mRNA vaccine, is freely available, and undergoing the same vetting process as the mRNA vaccines. The reason people are being labeled as "anti-vaxx" is because there aren't a lot of reports of the "anti-mRNA" crowd lining up to get the J-and-J shot.

[pattrn]

I know quite a few people who got J&J due to their hesitancy about Pfizer and Moderna. It's anecdotal, I know, but so are all of my personal experiences :) .

[YossarianFrPrez]

That's a valid response to being mRNA hesitant. But my impression is that those people aren't being called "anti-vaxx."

The concern I share with many other people is not as much about people who prevaricate about mRNA and get J&J, but about those who are armchair quarterbacking their way into believing things like science / all scientists are corrupt, we have no expert / collective knowledge of the various mechanisms by which vaccines work, there is a nebulous "they" that don't want you to know things, etc.

[scotu]

sure, but nobody is going around calling them anti-vaxxers, right?

[tzs]

> The Johnson and Johnson shot [...] is freely available

It may be more accurate to say was freely available. It has become hard to get in many places in the US.

[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/once-all-the-rage-...

[bondarchuk]

We will see what happens when Sinopharm and/or Valneva become available in the EU. J&J is not mRNA but it's also not an old style inactivated virus vaccine. As far as I can tell viral vector vaccines are just a little bit older than mRNA, having only been used against ebola since a few years ago (2018?).