Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 766 posts

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#391

Post by jakemal »

rkangel wrote: post #274
YaarPodshipnik wrote: post #47

I had COVID-19 early in the year, and so did my Wife (not sure about my Daughter, harder to tell with kids). I would really like to know whether I should get the vaccine or not? All the info that's out there says that immunity to C19 is temporary, so a vaccine after having gone through it doesn't seem redundant. Does anyone know if there's been any research on effects of the vaccine on the people who got C19 and reco…

> All the info that's out there says that immunity to C19 is temporary This isn't quite true. What is true is that there is no information out there to conclusively support long term retention of antibodies, in large part because we've only got 6 months of data. As to the latter point, I wonder about the trial design. If they didn't give all participants a Covid antibody test before starting, it is very likely that s…

> If they didn't give all participants a Covid antibody test before starting, it is very likely that several participants were previously infected.

Doesn't comparing to a control group account for that?

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#392

Post by moneywoes »

stuartbman wrote: post #361
jakozaur wrote: post #19

In terms of rollout. UK is the ideal country to be the first: 1. Heavily impacted by Covid-19. 2. Centralised health care system makes it easier to compare results and efficiency. E.g. it's UK which figured out that dexamethasone is efficient against Covid https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2020-who-welcomes-prelim... 3. Developed country with great logistics.

Re: point 2 While the healthcare is centralised, the data is not, and often poorly federated between a multitude of organisations. Scotland has unified this much more and is far better placed to monitor for efficacy and side effects.

Didn't an agency store data and loss data due to using an old format of excel file

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#393

Post by cpncrunch »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #382

Some elderly friends have asked why Britain is opting to use a brand new RNA/nanotechnololgy style vaccine (which has never been approved before) and is only ~94% effective, when there is a traditional inactivated vaccine that is 100% effective? I presume Pfizer simply have better lobying, but given the choice, I would rather go with old-fashioned sinovac https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3..…

Typically flu vaccine is 67% effective, which is similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#394

Post by macintux »

J-dawg wrote: post #314
spuz wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree. The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat. We also have polling that says about 53% will refuse to take the vaccine. So we're already at the point where something else must be done such as adding incentives, a passport system or better advertising etc. OR continued lockdown measures and enforcement of mask wearing. It's n…

> The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat ...to no longer be a threat to an unvaccinated person. This isn't like the childhood vaccines, where we need herd immunity to protect the children who are too young to be vaccinated. Provided that everyone who wants the vaccine can get it, I don't see the problem with letting everyone else make their…

> ...I don't see the problem with letting everyone else make their own decision.

Pandemics have, since time immemorial, been an exception to the "I can do what I want" rule.

Much like allowing parents to fall into conspiracy theory traps and refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated against measles, resulting in that disease suddenly becoming a threat again, if we're going to get back to normalcy we can't let half the population ignore the vaccine.

But, since we are going to let half the population ignore the vaccine, prepare for a long, drawn-out period of time during which the disease will flare up, lockdowns will be imposed, more people will needlessly die, and conspiracy theories will continue to make a mockery of civilization.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#395

Post by jMyles »

astura wrote: post #376
shusson wrote: post #71

Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?

For me, from a strictly individual perspective, the health risks from a vaccine is almost certainly less than the long term (and short term) risks of COVID-19 infection.

Is the long covid phenomenon any more pronounced with this virus than any other coronavirus (last I read[0], the answer seems to be 'no')? Since there are four others circulating, will this vaccine even have a significant effect on these post-viral symptoms?

0: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/17/what-is-long-covid...

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#396

Post by tinus_hn »

refurb wrote: post #339
tinus_hn wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What site? Just pick one of the over 150 trial sites at random? What are they going to see that they couldn’t have seen a month ago?

You'd fit right in with the folks that approved thalidomide. "Why worry about something that isn't going to happen?"

It would have been impossible to predict the problems with thalidomine by looking at the equivalent report as what is available now for these vaccines.

So looking at it for 20 days isn’t going to help with that. It’s just going to cost 100000 lives.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#397

Post by Ensorceled »

loblollyboy wrote: post #340
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Denmark where I live, a large proportion of infected people are age 20-29, and I wonder if it would make sense to vaccinate them first when you get to "rest of the population". Even though they have a smaller risk of getting seriously ill, that could be an effective way to lower transmission. That is: 1. Immunize the age group that is dominating in the hospitalization statistics, then 2. Immunize the age group is…

Because A.) Approx 1 20yo in a million will have life threatening complications. Plus B.) there are a lot more of them than their (are people who have non-negligible chance of dying + people around those with non-negligible chance of dying).

You essentially reiterated their first point without really addressing their second point.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#398

Post by anthonypasq »

goodcanadian wrote: post #257
nojito wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t true. The health institutions of the respective countries have access to the raw study data which they use to determine whether or not to approve them. The amount of fear mongering in hackernews is just mind blowing.

I don't think it is fear mongering. While the health institutes have access to the data, I don't. I don't think anyone on hacker news can make many intelligent statements about side effects, yet, though the press releases claim that they are similar to what is typical of other vaccines.

Why would you personally need access to the data unless you actually think the government would allow people to take a dangerous vaccine.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#400

Post by CJefferson »

graeme wrote: post #375
shusson wrote: post #71

Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?

I’m not aware of any vaccine that had long term side effects that were not also apparent in the short term. E.g. I believe it was the swine flu vaccine that caused narcolepsy in a small percentage of people receiving it. But that was apparent immediately. To my knowledge no one has identified any slow acting consequences of a vaccine that would not have been obvious from the first rollout of a vaccine. So this questi…

What do you mean by short term? That swine flu vaccine is my main concern. It wasn't clear in trials, and it took a couple of years before anyone took the problem seriously as far as I can tell -- by that point a significant chunk of the world could have a COVID vaccine.
Post reply on HN