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

611–620 of 766 posts

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

#611

Post by johnisgood »

pmoriarty wrote: post #268
usrusr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully expect the same. Basically, if you are less than 65 years old and not working in one of the early access professions, forget all concerns about vaccine safety. Buckle up to face the virus natively in that third wave that will sweep through unmitigated once the high mortality groups are vaccinated.

There may be places you won't be allowed to go and things you won't be allowed to do (like work, maybe) unless you show proof of having been vaccinated. There's a good chance that situation will create a black market both for vaccines (real and fake) and forged proof of vaccination.

Why are you being down-voted? Our politicians are saying exactly this. If you do not get vaccinated, you will have to remain at home.

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

#612

Post by blackrock »

Is it just me, or is the western world rushing to this miracle vaccine, as a cure, without fully understanding its safety.

All the while, claiming that this new mRNA technology, is the panacea to all our ailments and diseases.

I feel humanity might be at an inflection point here, where we divide into the world of the Morlocks and the Eloi.

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

#613

Post by JamisonM »

ericb wrote: post #563
partyboat1586 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to remember that SARS was a lot more deadly that COVID-19. I am not at all surprised such a high percentage of people suffered long term lung damage given how virulent it was. Case fatality was somewhere around 10%.

I'm curious if there was widespread serology testing to get to that number with the original SARS. That's in the ballpark of what the early SARS-COV-2 research (15%) showed until we realized there were asymptomatics and people who don't go to the hospital (because they aren't severe) and that numbers drawn from the hospitalized were not representative. If that number was just pulled from hospitalizations because we s…

There was not widespread serology testing but subsequent analysis has the WHO pegging the fatality rate at about 3% (as opposed to the 10% from the time of the outbreak itself).

We didn't really shut SARS down so much as it seemed to have shut itself down, conventional epidemic control measures were enough to contain it and it was not quite easily transmissible enough to sustain itself in the wider population without being allowed to gain a real foothold undetected first.

That last point would be why you would not expect (and I would think it is impossible) to find that at the end of the day COVID-19 will be anywhere near as deadly as SARS. We have strong evidence that it takes truly extraordinary measures to suppress this new virus at a rate that will in fact eliminate it from a population when compared to SARS. SARS simply didn't spread that widely because if it did that would directly contradict the relative ease of its containment.

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

#614

Post by parliament32 »

anthonypasq wrote: post #403
SifJar wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These vaccines have been tested in ~40,000 people each, so we do know quite a bit about their safety. We know quite a bit about their short term safety. It's impossible to know for sure if there is any long term side effect. But that is probably a risk we have to take to get past the immediate threat of covid-19.

vaccines pretty much never have long term side effects

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10870...

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

#615

Post by krona »

BurningFrog wrote: post #437
napier wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a sheer infection control standpoint it makes a sense to vaccinate hypermobile social superspreader nodes first. Anyone who comes into contact with lots of people is going to be responsible for more onward infection chains than a reclusive grandma. The butterflies among the young are probably key drivers of spread. Take them out of the susceptibility picture and everyone benefits.

There is a considerable Moral Hazard element to this, but it would make sense to vaccinate the most irresponsible people first, since they're the ones spreading it most.

How do you know whether someone is being 'irresponsible' before they catch the virus? Do you follow them around, taking photographs? Imagine the social stigma, for starters. Do you live in the real world, or a computer game?

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

#616

Post by parliament32 »

rebuilder wrote: post #245

Do we have any more data on what the wider effectiveness of these vaccines is likely to be? Duration of immunity? I've heard a minimum of 3-4 months reported, possibly longer, but do we know more now? Am I right that we don't yet know if they reduce transmission or simply prevent the disease? If the duration of immunity turns out to only be a few months, I wonder how this is going to play out. Will we periodically va…

>Will we periodically vaccinate 25-60% of the population, indefinitely?

Considering the common side effects from this vaccine (most people get severe flu-like symptoms for about a day after each shot), it's pretty unlikely people would be willing to be re-vaccinated every few months.

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

#617

Post by johnisgood »

Angostura wrote: post #311
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…

We don't know yet whether the vaccine stops people from being asymptomic spreaders. We do know that it is effective at stopping people from getting ill. So we don't know how beneficial your 2 above would be.

So I should only get the vaccine if I fear for being sick, similarly to the flu, right? I do not want the vaccine. I have been exposed to many COVID-19 positive people and I am fine, thus, I do not want a rushed vaccine.

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

#618

Post by scld »

marricks wrote: post #389
dbbk wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, do you think the UK regulator approved Pfizer based on... a press release?

The full data was just released like last week? There hasn’t been time to fully review it which may be the point. The US set a meeting date of 12/10 to decide on EUA so scientists had time to review the data.

The US meeting date is based on an arbitrary scheduling rule saying meetings like this must take place 15 days after request, or something to that effect.

The FDA itself closely inspects data throughout the phase 3 trials so this review should just consist of looking at the details to see if something was missed, (ideally) not some brand new information come to light.

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

#619

Post by nkohari »

macintux wrote: post #570
nkohari wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is an effective vaccine which is readily available to anyone, there is no need for lockdowns.

People who don’t use the vaccine and get sick still have an impact on healthcare systems. People who do take the vaccine are likely still able to spread the virus. The pandemic is not going to go quietly any time soon.

It's still unknown whether vaccines convey sterilizing immunity. Even if they don't, there will be no political will to institute lockdowns if the people who are getting sick could have been vaccinated. If unvaccinated people getting Covid-19 creates undue strain on the healthcare system, the calls will be for mandatory vaccination, not for lockdowns.

Restricting social interaction and business is a crushing approach to solving the problem, with severe consequences to health and economics. It's brute force, like securing a computer using an air gap. The only reason lockdowns have been used in 2020 is because we have no other options available, but a free and readily-available vaccine changes the calculus.

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

#620

Post by AnthonBerg »

djsumdog wrote: post #575
natalyarostova wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55 I'll never understand people who say this, thinking it somehow proves their point or something. My parents are nearly 60, and easily have 20 more years of time with me and their grandkids. Why are we okay with that?

Then why not protect them specifically? Give money to isolate them if they don't live in their own homes. Provide grocery delivery services. Let them make the choice. There are some old people who are 70 and say "I want to live my life" and so let them go out and do whatever and assume the risk themselves. We can provide support specifically to those at risk, while also respecting the liberty and freedom of everyone…

> I don't understand why this is so complicated.

There are people who are competent enough to do so. Those people carry the actual responsibility.

Your thoughts have answers readily available.

Post reply on HN