Good morning. Welcome to Axios today. It's Monday, February 1st. I'm Naila Boudi. Here's what we're covering today.

Congress prepares for impeachment and stimulus talks. covering today's one big thing, the wrong way to think about

stimulus talks.

Plus, social media tries to cash in on the creator economy.

But first, today's one big thing, the wrong way to think about vaccines.

With new variants of the coronavirus spreading around the country,

we're facing a deadlier and longer lasting pandemic, which is why

vaccines are more crucial than ever. They're now three viable vaccines against the

coronavirus from Moderna, Pfizer, and now Johnson and Johnson. It's a remarkable feat, but there's a lot we don't know, like, can we transmit the virus after being vaccinated or how effective are these vaccines against mutations?

And is putting too much emphasis on what we don't know

discouraging people from getting vaccinated?

That's what Axios has been asking.

Hey Brian, I wonder if we can start with the most recent news of Johnson and Johnson,

announcing Friday that it was 66% effective against COVID-19. it's lower than Moderna and Pfizer's efficacy rates, but why do you

think it's a mistake to focus on the efficacy rate here?

I think it's a mistake to focus on that raw number of efficacy because what we really care

about when it comes to a vaccine is can it prevent hospitalizations, can it prevent deaths?

So the very fact this vaccine proved to be 100% effective in a 44,000 person

study against hospitalizations and deaths tells me that this is a very effective vaccine.

It's also important that Johnson's vaccine only requires one dose.

It doesn't require sort of complex cold storage system

the way that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines do and that's actually in some ways

...