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

171–180 of 404 posts

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

#171

Post by acqq »

Slartie wrote: post #97
sleepyshift wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could someone please explain how this can be the case? I understand the vaccine works by stimulating antibody production, which prevent you from becoming ill by binding to the virus and disabling it should it enter your system. How then could the virus be spread further if it's already been disabled?

There is the virus replicating itself in a body, which leads to the body being able to spread the virus to others. And there is the body getting sick. The second often follows the first, but the two are not necessarily connected, which is proven by asymptomatic spreaders. In the vaccine phase 3 tests, it was only determined whether people get sick, and the vaccine was found to prevent 95% of people from getting sick.…

Possible "reduced viral load" by those who are vaccinated simply doesn't mean that that load is below the threshold which makes somebody not infectious. In practice, it could, for example, mean that if such persons spend two hours in the room with you they can still transmit the virus to you, whereas the non vaccinated person with the virus would transmit to you in 15 minutes. So you can't just claim that a person is 100% safe because the load is just "reduced."

Additionally, for the immune system to respond, the infection has to happen first -- the virus has to spread through the cells of your body. We already know that the people are indeed infectious before their immune system response makes the symptoms. The delay in response has to exist even among the vaccinated people.

So what is sought after is a proof of sterilizing immunity, and there's no such still. I've read that the UK plans to evaluate the evidence for that in the following months by tracking the people who get the vaccine, which sounds good.

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

#172

Post by bamboleo »

madeofpalk wrote: post #23
Wintamute wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as a side note, asymptomatic spread is a contested topic. If asymptomatic spread were a major driver of infection, this would be the first respiratory virus to work that way. Sources: - Nature study, 20th Nov https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w - Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO Emerging Diseases and Zoonosis unit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs - Fauci in 2018 https://www.youtube.c…

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

That’s just word play. I’m asymptotic today, symptomatic tomorrow.

I, asymptotic young person with nCoV 2, am spreading it today. The “yet” part is completely irrelevant to this point in time.

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

#173

Post by briefcomment »

einarfd wrote: post #127
briefcomment wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why it’s not enough to just vaccinate people who want to get vaccinated? Doesn’t that cover everyone who wants to avoid covid19?

No vaccine is ever 100%, you will see that some vaccinated people do get sick. In addition you have people that can't be vaccinated, these are still at risk. But if you vaccinated enough people, the successful vaccinated will act as a kind of firewall and hinder the sickness from effectively spreading.

But comments above state that the vaccine doesn't effect spread. If that's true, then vaccinating everyone would not address any of those points.

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

#174

Post by howlgarnish »

jayflux wrote: post #151
checker659 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pfizer doesn't have to do anything. The vaccines will be sent all over the world, all destined for reputable hospitals where they're intended to be used for elderly transgender orphans with pre-existing conditions working in COVID ICUs. However, some shipments will mysteriously fall off the truck on the way there, and will resurface at private hospitals for the elite who can and will pay large quantities for them.

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

#175

Post by jfengel »

hestefisk wrote: post #91
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?

I’m sure the infectious disease specialists know what they are doing.

I wouldn't go that far. But I'd say they're doing their best with what they do know, which is going to be more comprehensive than "some guy on the Internet".

It doesn't mean they're right, or even that they're all in agreement on the best course. But they're tasked with making a decision that absolutely has to be made right now, and can't wait on getting a complete picture.

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

#176

Post by SlateBlate »

spuz wrote: post #161
SlateBlate wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's reasonable to ask what the risks are, but unspecific ramblings about risks aren't helpful and it's unreasonable to highlight very hypothetical risks compared to the very real risks of getting Covid-19. Where was this ramblings on OP's comment? He genuinly asked a question without mentioning any side effects. Why is it being downvoted?

It's being downvoted because the commenter made no effort to show what kind of research they had done in order to relieve their worry. If they genuinely were "really really concerned" about the potential side effects then they would have done some research on what those effects could be, what scientists had done to account for them etc. If they have done no research, that is lazy, hence worthy of a downvote. If they…

This is getting worse than Stack Overflow.

So you can't ask a question for more clarification unless you spend hours researching the subject?. I can get that if it's a coding question and someone was looking for a solution. But this is a scientific subject and there is a pool of knowledgeable HN users who can help with this kind of questions.

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

#177

Post by howlgarnish »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #168
timrichard wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing this post reminded me that when I had the 'flu vaccine a little while back, the Pharmacist advised avoiding Paracetamol (Tylenol?) afterwards in case it reduced the efficacy of the vaccine. A bit of quick Googling turned up study results from a while back suggesting this in relation to childhood vaccines. Just wondering if anyone here with experience in the field has a opinion on whether painkillers like these…

Honestly Tylenol is a really fucky one, I've had it once when I was in the US and it got me off my tits. I mean pardon my french but that stuff is something else. And in a lot of cases gratuitous; at best it takes the edge off, for me personally, some paracetamol has the same effect without the side effects of an inability to drive or operate heavy machinery.

Uhh, Tylenol = acetaminophen = paracetamol, it's all the same thing with different names.

Did you have one of the Tylenol XX formulations with other active ingredients mixed in, perhaps?

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

#178

Post by zebrafish »

lagadu wrote: post #21
ck2 wrote: post #14

Good luck to the average person getting it in the USA before March. Even with half the population refusing it because the anti-vax people might be even more crazy than the anti-maskers. Which makes you wonder which country will have covid longest.

All countries will have covid forever[0]: it's an endemic disease to nearly all continents now, much like the flu or aids. [0]for values of "forever" that don't go into the far future where viruses may have a cure or an effective form of erradication.

You should provide sources for claims like this or at least claims stated in this way. The actual real truth is, like most things with this virus that showed up a few months ago, nobody knows for sure.

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

#179

Post by howlgarnish »

wrinkl3 wrote: post #45
idnefju wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia doesn’t have it. Wasn’t impossible, just had to stop air travel and lockdown for a period. Now the only people with COVID are returned Australian travellers from overseas who have to go on hotel quarantine

Yeah but for how long? Unless Australia is willing to keep screening all arrivals and containing outbreaks indefinitely, Covid is gonna start circulating there at some point.

Qantas (the Australian airline) has already announced that they intend to require COVID vaccination as a condition for boarding international flights: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/qantas-covid-19-v...

Australia is also not even letting citizens leave the country without special permission. I don't see them loosening up until there's actual herd immunity via vaccination in the country.

Post reply on HN