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

First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 404 posts

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#151

Post by jayflux »

checker659 wrote: post #130
bencoder wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the billions that governments have paid for their place in the queue

India alone has 759k millionaires. Assuming each has a family of four, and they’re willing to pay just $500 for a two shot course on an exclusive basis (say). That alone will be make pfizer about 1.58 billion dollars. There are 13555k millionaires outside of Europe and US. The 1.9 billion paid by the US government for 100million viles pales in front of what pfizer could earn by catering to the rich. So, again, my que…

Do you honestly think Pfizer would come off well (PR wise) if they put millionaires in the front of the queue for cash? At a time when vulnerable people are dying? The $1.58bn wouldn’t be worth sinking their entire brand, not even close.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#152

Post by spuz »

switch007 wrote: post #100
dbbk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not even any plans to offer vaccines privately in the UK yet. The NHS isn't going to offer it to travellers.

I would be gobsmacked if it isn’t available privately. I’m sure someone is planning it. I’d guess that wide spread availability privately will coincide with when the highest risk groups have been vaccinated and then the government will say it’s “only right and proper” that people who aren’t very much at risk, who “can pay, should pay” rather than “burdening” the NHS and timed that they won’t look too callous.

Why would they do that? If they are providing it free to those at high risk, why not provide it free to those at low risk? Why would they charge for this particular treatment when all other treatments are free? How could they ensure those who are poor and cannot afford to pay still get vaccinated?

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#153

Post by refurb »

chimprich wrote: post #139
refurb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccines have undergone significant testing, and they're not doing anything magical. "Significant testing" is 20,000 people. We're preparing to roll it out to billions. That's not "significant testing". If there was a 1 in 500,000 side effect, you'd never see it in the trials. And yes, these vaccines are doing something "magical". We've never had an mRNA vaccine rolled out to the general public before. That said,…

> "Significant testing" is 20,000 people. We're preparing to roll it out to billions. That's not "significant testing". If there was a 1 in 500,000 side effect, you'd never see it in the trials. That is significant testing. It is correct that you might not see a 1 in 500,000 side-effect in testing, but a 1 in 500,000 adverse effect is probably a risk factor that most people could accept. > And yes, these vaccines are…

Statins were tested in tens of thousands and the treated population is probably 100x to 1000x.

With the Covid vaccine we’re talking 10,000x expansion of patient population.

And your body also uses neurotransmitters all the time but we don’t wave our hands and say antidepressants are ok because they just modify neurotransmitters. New technology means new "unknown unknowns".

But with that said, I'm not saying don't get the vaccine. I'm just saying, don't be so confident that there is no risk.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#154

Post by makomk »

Munksgaard wrote: post #115
OneGuy123 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that covid deaths are diagnosed the other way around: even if you die WITH covid it's assumed that you died BECAUSE of covid. But when it comes to the vaccine it should be the other way around? So we have to apply common sense to the vaccine related deaths but not to the covid related deaths?

Is this really true? I know that, at least here in Denmark, the relevant authority has sent out a note saying, explicitly, that dying of eg. a heart attack, while infected with COVID-19, does not count as a COVID-19 death. It also explicitly says the same thing about motor-cycle accidents, which I know has been a rumor that has made the rounds. Source: https://sundhedsdatastyrelsen.dk/-/media/sds/filer/rammer-og...

It's true in the UK. Anyone who dies with 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19 is counted as a Covid death, don't think there are exceptions for obvious things like motor-cycle accidents and definitely not for heart attacks (some of those probably are caused by Covid). Also, the NHS is testing almost everyone admitted to hospital. Used to be anyone who died at any point after testing positive but that messed with the figures too much and made it impossibe to see any actual increase in Covid deaths.

This is one of many reasons that it's difficult to compare death figures from different countries.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#155

Post by tyingq »

aphextron wrote: post #3

A 90 year old woman in a nursing home is not spreading COVID. Wouldn't it make more sense to give this to people who are most at risk of spreading it, not dying from it? Why wouldn't we go at the root cause of the pandemic; young healthy asymptomatic spreaders?

Anecdotal, but several "super spread" type events near me were nursing homes. Makes some sense as there are a lot of communal facilities. People cross paths a lot, and several shifts of employees are in and out.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#156

Post by dis-sys »

aphextron wrote: post #3

A 90 year old woman in a nursing home is not spreading COVID. Wouldn't it make more sense to give this to people who are most at risk of spreading it, not dying from it? Why wouldn't we go at the root cause of the pandemic; young healthy asymptomatic spreaders?

because the vaccine has never been proven to be able to stop asymptomatic spreads.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#157

Post by chimprich »

Mirioron wrote: post #47
cpfohl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adjuvants in modern vaccines are extraordinarily well studied and safe. Current side effects include 6-24 hours of feeling totally crappy. Still beats Covid-19...

How modern is "modern" here? Because the whole Pandermix saga happened only a decade ago and some are pointing towards the combination of the adjuvant and antigen: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948/rr-22 Considering that this doesn't seem to be a settled question, I'm not so sure that it makes sense to blindly trust that everything will be alright in the current, rushed, case.

It's worth pointing out that the Pandemrix "saga" affected very few people.

According to [1], "The UK Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England) undertook a major study of 4- to 18-year-olds and found that around one in every 55,000 jabs led to narcolepsy."

Very rare frequency incidents that slip through testing shouldn't make us over-cautious to the enormous benefits of vaccination.

[1] https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#158

Post by Wintamute »

cassianoleal wrote: post #103
Wintamute wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think there has been an interval longer than a week since February during which I didn’t have at least a couple symptoms that could have been COVID. It's remarkable the number of people anecdotally reporting similar symptoms - often out of character for otherwise robustly healthy individuals. I'm guessing some sort of psychosomatic response to the year's stresses.

Is it that out of character though? I have been having the same, but the main reason why I notice it now is that every time I have any symptom, even the mildest of them, I take notice and consider the possibility of Covid, whereas in past years I would forget about them if even notice at all. For context, I'm a fairly healthy individual who hasn't seen a GP or other medical doctor in at least a couple years, probably…

> every time I have any symptom, even the mildest of them, I take notice and consider the possibility of Covid

This is hypochondria isn't it? A pathology in its own right, no doubt caused by current events.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#159

Post by robjan »

varispeed wrote: post #145
robjan wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foreign nationals without a visa (and non-resident British people, like me now) do receive a bill. I used to work in the department that recovers the money. The rates are in an excel file linked on this page. Visitors pay 150% of the published rate. https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/national-tariff/

Out of curiosity, what kind of money we are talking about? For example checking up sprained ankle at A&E? Many of my friends being disappointed with NHS go for example to Mexico for private treatment and it works much better that doing it here, plus you can enjoy the climate and great food.

Not giving medical advice but you probably shouldn't be going to A&E for a sprained ankle unless it's very serious or a suspected break.

For people who are not ordinarily resident in the UK an A&E admission costs £100-£500 plus any tests and treatment. There's a small amount of margin which is used to offset the cost of recovering the money and the fact that sometimes the bills go unpaid.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#160

Post by AlanSE »

Wintamute wrote: post #41
madeofpalk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My casual understanding was that there werent really any asymptomatic spreaders, just "not symptomatic yet ". Is this wrong?

I'm not aware of stats relating to how many asymptomatic individuals go on to develop full blown symptomatic Covid-19. My assumption is that testing PCR positive while remaining asymptomatic the entire time is by far the most common experience. Of course, whether you go on to develop symptoms or not, its still highly pertinent information if asymptomatic spread is not a major driver of infection. As long as you self…

Truly asymptomatic spread is not a major driver of infection. There are been some major public relations problems when an organization said this, and were mistaken to mean pre-symptomatic, but the science is pretty clear.

We used to think true asymptomatic infections (never develop any symptoms but test positive) were ~50% of those infected. More recent research puts it at closer to ~20%. Again, some reporting bungled this by reporting studies from controlled populations (like a cruise ship) before they knew if cases were asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, causing people to quote the number as the former, when it was really a mix.

COVID spreads like wildfire by pre-symptomatic people. There are mountains of evidence to support this. Spread by asymptomatic people is speculation.

> Of course, whether you go on to develop symptoms or not, its still highly pertinent information if asymptomatic spread is not a major driver of infection.

Not sure, but I think you may be using the word "asymptomatic" to denote pre-symptomatic in this sentence.

> As long as you self isolate upon symptom onset that should be enough.

It is not enough.

Post reply on HN