First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by mikepurvis » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

Wintamute wrote: post #18

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?

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…

In Ontario (as elsewhere), there's been a giant ramp up in cases since the start of September, with an accompanying discussion about whether or not reopening schools is the cause. But a recent testing blitz at a single Toronto school uncovered 26 infected individuals scattered across 18 classrooms:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-stude...

Still not obvious one way or the other about whether these students and staff are spreading it amongst themselves or if they all got it from other symptomatic cases in the community and independently brought it to school with them. But either way, it's sobering how much of it is going undetected.

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

#222

Post by CivBase » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

shellac wrote: post #219

CivBase wrote: post #197

> First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK *after getting approval from regulators Tens of thousands already received the vaccine during trials. This marks the official rollout with general public availability (pending supply issues), so that's cool. It's just weird that the article refers to this dose in particular as a "historic event".

Literally first line of the article: > A UK grandmother has become the first person in the world to be given the Pfizer Covid-19 jab as part of a mass vaccination programme.

Yes, I read it.

Literally the second line of my comment:

> This marks the official rollout with general public availability (pending supply issues), so that's cool. It's just weird that the article refers to this dose in particular as a "historic event".

Here's the line from the article I'm referring to:

> Prof Stephen Powis, national medical director of NHS England, who witnessed the "historic moment", said: "We couldn't hug her but we could clap and everybody did so in the room."

They even quoted "historic moment" almost like they were being sarcastic about it. It's just weird.

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

#223

Post by monkeynotes » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

SlateBlate wrote: post #182

monkeynotes wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What crazy logic is this? You are saying one needs to have evidence of risk in order to ask if there is any evidence of risk. What is wrong with people when simply asking about negative impacts of a rushed vaccine is considered a worthless distraction. I thought the audience of hacker news users would also be curious, inquisitive folk.

Yeah, I'm quite surprised too. I've been lurking here for at least 10 years and consider this to be the best place to discuss everything openly. But this sensivity to question anything related to vaccine is beyond ridiculous. Even asking what the side effects are like OP did gets you downvoted. And by the way, I will take the vaccine asap because of my health issues, but this doesn't mean we can't even ask questions…

I have no objection to taking the vaccine but being as informed as you possibly can about your short and long-term health is surely important. After all this crisis is about health, we are clearly concerned with our health so why does this not extend to concern around a rapidly developed vaccine that you are going to put in your body?

Humans err all the time, why is this an exception? Why is no one here skeptical, or at least curious? Why is critical thinking set aside?

Science is now relative. Not only do we have mass misinformation but the side effect is an overreaction seeing intelligent thinkers reject their principles in order to put as much distance as possible between them and the perceived thought cancer.

What we are witnessing is compulsory hard-line. Where will you be when the mob comes after your curiosity? How many friends will you lose, how many thoughts of your own will you be free to have?

I really don't get how everyone is ok with ushering in what would otherwise be seen as dystopia. And don't compare this to a war. Wars are to preserve freedom and our principles. This war is the complete opposite. We have given up on free thinking, western values are out the window, right or wrong, but make no mistake this is the reality and we should at least acknowledge it as such.

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

#224

Post by vharuck » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

OneGuy123 wrote: post #94

refurb wrote: post #69

As this rolls out I thought Derek Lowe had a good point to make https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/04/ge... When you vaccinate this many people, you will have those people die, get heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc. Why? Because that would have happened to them anyways, vaccine or not. So don’t freak out when “issues” start to crop up. Wait until someone has a done a proper analysis to see if th…

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?

This isn't totally accurate for the guidance from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/covid-19.htm#understanding-the...

In summary:

- COVID-19 deaths are counts of death certificates that list COVID-19 as a contributing cause of death.

- A death certificate can list multiple causes of death. The dataset I work with includes up to 20.

- Causes of death are determined by the medical professional who fills out the death certificate. They use their professional judgement.

- COVID-19 deaths are counted differently compared to usual death data. In the usual tables listing deaths by cause, each death is only counted for the underlying cause of death (there can be only one). That's the cause which kicked off the whole process of dying. Still, for the COVID-19 deaths, the disease must still be a contributing cause.

As a note, I don't believe any allegations the professionals filling out death certificates are following firm and unreasonable rules. The group of people who file death certificates in the US is just to varied: physicians, medical examiners, elected coroners, district attorneys, etc. Coordination, let alone conspiracy, is nearly impossible.

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

#225

Post by sshagent » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

daveed wrote: post #52

> Second in line for the jab at University Hospital in Coventry was 81-year-old William Shakespeare from Warwickshire His high priority must've been on purpose, right?

I wonder if he was randomly determined to patient 1 for the vaccine, then they thought the conspiracy theorists will go nuts if they find out William Shakespear had the first shot

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

#226

Post by frobozz » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

bamboleo wrote: post #172

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?

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.

This is one of those situations where the overlap between colloquial and technical usage can cause confusion when one leaks into the other.

In colloquial usage, asymptomatic encompasses presymptomatic. In technical usage, they are different.

If you develop symptoms, then when you were a carrier before then, you were presymptomatic, rather than asymptomatic.

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

#227

Post by M2Ys4U » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

Narretz wrote: post #40

JonoW wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the vaccine has not been showed to reduce transmission, it's been shown to reduce impact, i.e. she's less likely to die if someone visits her, so great for her, and her families, well-being.

If it reduces impact it also reduces impact of transmission because the patient has lower viral load. Masks have to same effect, although to a lesser degree (and obviously a different mode of operation).

>If it reduces impact it also reduces impact of transmission because the patient has lower viral load.

That's incredibly likely but it's not what the trails tested, and so we can't rely on it.

When the vaccine has been rolled out much more widely we'll be able to gather the data to test that hypothesis using surveillance data.

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

#228

Post by J-dawg » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

krona wrote: post #116

hannob wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a tendency to highlight risks and sideeffects of this vaccine that is without any basis. 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. Right now the risk issue seems pretty clearcut: There were no serious sideeffects in the trials. What gave me additi…

> It seems almost impossible that the vaccines pose a greater risk than the risk of not using them. How about to a baby, or an unborn baby? The relative risk is almost certainly higher to a baby, but how high? We don't know, since there haven't been any longitudinal studies (for starters.) Which is why it would be unethical outside a clinical trial to administer it to younger people en masse. Eventually the relative…

The UK government has already stated that pregnant women won't be getting the vaccine. (https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-pregnant-women...)

This seems at odds with the gung-ho "it's 100% safe" rhetoric of our politicians.

I am by no means an anti-vaxxer, but I'm already finding it creepy the way any concerns are simply being dismissed. It's also just bad policy: it means that any unexpected side-effects that do emerge (even if very rare / not serious) will look much worse and immediately stink of a cover-up.

What's wrong with saying: "We are confident, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the risk of taking this vaccine is lower than the risk of contracting Covid"? Not "This vaccine is definitely safe". I am sick of politicians treating the electorate as if they are morons who can't understand the slightest bit of nuance.

As you mention, vaccines can cause harm and have done in the past. Some degree of caution might be warranted.

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

#229

Post by runeks » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

mikepechadotcom wrote: post #32

I feel like mRNA vaccines have huge potential, but I am really, really concerned about potential side effects. Does anyone know which other helper-substances are inside the vaccine, besides the RNA?

> I feel like mRNA vaccines have huge potential, but I am really, really concerned about potential side effects.

Would you mind expanding on this? Why are you severely concerned about side effects for mRNA vaccines in particular?

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

#230

Post by iguy » Tue, Dec 08, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #196

iguy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably they pre-sold based on estimates of their production. I would not be very surprised if it turns out they can make 10% more than they committed, and auction this off. And would expect hospitals treating Saudi princelings & the like to win such an auction. But does anyone actually know what these pre-sale contracts look like? They must have some wiggle room in case production doesn't go as well as planned...…

Companies that have a vaccine are aware of image. They know that the world is watching, and this is a big marketing opportunity. They will make a profit, but long term goodwill is more valuable than any profit they could make selling to billionaires, so I doubt anything will go to auction. The hospitals treating Saudi princes are real hospitals. So they can win auctions if it comes down to that, because they are invi…

Yes, an actual open auction would be astonishingly bad PR! But quietly, on the side? Maybe I'm a cynic but I struggle to believe the billionaires won't find a way.

If not from the main production... they had 43538 phase III participants, there must be leftovers, which won't appear in the books as real production... maybe you can route those to important donors of your philanthropic arm, or something? Run some "further trials" in a variety of small clinics, including those catering to visiting Saudis?

Plus actual black market stuff of course, I wonder if any of their refrigerated shipping boxes have gone missing? And, as you say, things like the Russian vaccine are probably already available at a price.