The article is 100% accurate insofar as it refers to the Novavax study itself. The relevant extract reads: "The clinical trial also achieved its primary efficacy endpoint in the overall trial population, including HIV-positive and HIV-negative subjects (efficacy of 49.4%; 95% CI: 6.1 – 72.8)."

(Source: ir.novavax.com/.../novavax-covid-19-vaccine-demonstrates-893-efficacy-uk-phase-3)

"Overall efficacy was 49.4% in this trial, but the figure rose to 60% among the 94% of trial participants who were HIV-negative."

(Source: www.livemint.com/.../...riant-11611878690393.html)

See also: www.businessinsider.co.za/novavax-vaccine-trial-results-in-uk-and-south-africa-2021-1

With regard to your comment, being HIV-positive does not automatically render you immunocompromised. Medical science has advanced to such a point that the correct treatment, properly administered, can let you live a normal life with an undetectable viral load - which, although you are not cured, allows you to live a normal life to the extent where you would even be incredibly unlikely to infect a partner with the virus via sexual intercourse. Whilst I can't speak for those in the Novavax study, it was clearly stated that all HIV-positive participants were regarded as "medically stable" and there is consequently no reason to regard them as immunocompromised.

Unlike Novavax, J&J is a "live" vaccine, and it would not be recommended to immunocompromised people. The following article highlights its performance, but it has since expanded to include over 100,000 frontline healthcare and other essential workers: www.businessinsider.co.za/jj-single-dose-covid-19-vaccine-full-study-results-2021-2

This one is straight from the horse's mouth: South Africa's health minister has put J&J at the top of his first tier of vaccines that would be recommended for immediate use in SA, bearing in mind that the other two candidates (Pfizer and Moderna) have only received in-vitro testing against the SA variant. Novavax, along with AstraZeneca, is included in the bottom tier, below Sputnik, Sinovac, and Sinopharm, about which SA has thus far raised only queries (www.reuters.com/.../...rus-safrica-idUSKBN2AN1H1).

J&J's "57%" unquestionably beats Novavax's doubtful "60%" in the real world.

The only big difference - one that is not explained - is the underlying reason for the deviation from 60% in HIV- participants to 49.4% for the entire sample? What is the efficacy for HIV+ participants and why is it bad enough to reduce to overall efficacy rate when they constituted only 6% of the total sample? Perhaps direct your indignance regarding the "big difference" to Novavax, who are seemingly unwilling to devote more to it than a mere bracketed paragraph.