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

Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 274 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#101

Post by _Understated_ »

xxpor wrote: post #98
_Understated_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant "underlying conditions", not underlying symptoms... that's my fault. So, basically, if you are healthy, your chances are absolutely tiny that you will die if you catch it. So, yeah, it matters a whole lot actually.

Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are concidered underlying conditions, people with "no underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total population.

We're talking about serious stuff: cancer, immune disorders, diabetes, obesity etc.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#102

Post by _Understated_ »

thebruce87m wrote: post #97
_Understated_ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but I take issue with that statement: 100% protection against death and hospitalization for a tiny minority that are susceptible. Your statement makes it sound like everyone that gets it will die when that is absolutely not true. In fact, the statistics show the exact opposite: here in the UK, for example, only around 400 people under the age of 70 (I think!) that have no underlying symptoms, have actually die…

Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 extra people died in the UK since COVID started. Antibody testing suggests that this was a result of ~10% of people being infected. I’ll let you do the maths for deaths due to herd immunity, and whether that is a “tiny minority”. People at risk include people with diabetes and asthma. In Scotland, the most hospital beds have been occupied by the 45 - 64 age group. Not sure about oth…

> Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 extra people died in the UK since COVID started.

It still doesn't negate the argument that it only affects the vulnerable.

And those in the hospital beds: what were their conditions while in there? What were their underlying health issues (if any)? Did they recover?

I'm not saying people don't get sick, I'm saying the cure is worse than the disease especially when the ones dying are a tiny fraction of the population.

Edit: I live in Scotland - we have had the "sick man of Europe" title for a long time and we have an obesity crisis here [0]

[0] - https://www.obesityactionscotland.org/media/1026/obesityfact...

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#103

Post by [deleted] »

_Understated_ wrote: post #99
akuchling wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But most people are unhealthy, with one condition or another. It's misleading to throw out most of the population and then say "but look how small the numbers are for the sliver that's left!"

That's not an argument... Healthy is subjective but when you say it like that then, yes, everyone has something. However, there are a bunch of things that will greatly increase your chances of dying from COVID: diabetes, obesity, cancer, immune-related illnesses so this is what I am referring to. It's fair to say that people with one or more of those (not an exhaustive list) are "unhealthy". So, it's not misleading:…

[deleted]

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#104

Post by _Understated_ »

lostlogin wrote: post #100
_Understated_ wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution too. Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been close to deaths door. No way to tell. The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable g…

The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about. What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PII…

Balance, that's what I'm pushing for.

Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed experimental gene therapy still in initial trials.

Edit: Remember that none of the media and government published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely important.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#105

Post by thebruce87m »

_Understated_ wrote: post #102
thebruce87m wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 extra people died in the UK since COVID started. Antibody testing suggests that this was a result of ~10% of people being infected. I’ll let you do the maths for deaths due to herd immunity, and whether that is a “tiny minority”. People at risk include people with diabetes and asthma. In Scotland, the most hospital beds have been occupied by the 45 - 64 age group. Not sure about oth…

> Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 extra people died in the UK since COVID started. It still doesn't negate the argument that it only affects the vulnerable. And those in the hospital beds: what were their conditions while in there? What were their underlying health issues (if any)? Did they recover? I'm not saying people don't get sick, I'm saying the cure is worse than the disease especially when the ones dying a…

In a “do nothing” scenario we would probably expect hundreds of thousands more vulnerable people dying before their time in the UK, along with who-knows how many 45-64 year olds (and other age groups) due to overwhelmed hospitals. We’ve seen that overwhelmed hospitals can’t do normal things like cancer treatment either, so tally that up too.

This is worth some inconvenience and higher taxes to me. I guess some people have no vulnerable relatives and no co-morbidities, or maybe value things like going to the pub above their gran. Personally I would rather have my 80 year old dad and 76 year old mum around for another few years than spend a week in Tenerife this year.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#106

Post by _Understated_ »

thebruce87m wrote: post #105
_Understated_ wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excess mortality shows us ~100,000 extra people died in the UK since COVID started. It still doesn't negate the argument that it only affects the vulnerable. And those in the hospital beds: what were their conditions while in there? What were their underlying health issues (if any)? Did they recover? I'm not saying people don't get sick, I'm saying the cure is worse than the disease especially when the ones dying a…

In a “do nothing” scenario we would probably expect hundreds of thousands more vulnerable people dying before their time in the UK, along with who-knows how many 45-64 year olds (and other age groups) due to overwhelmed hospitals. We’ve seen that overwhelmed hospitals can’t do normal things like cancer treatment either, so tally that up too. This is worth some inconvenience and higher taxes to me. I guess some people…

I didn't advocate for "do nothing". Not at all.

I live in the UK and we have the NHS so their job is to look after people when they get sick (and, to a certain extent, use preventative measure like education where appropriate).

But the UK governments largest spend is the NHS. We pay a fortune every year for it. So if they can't do their job then heads should roll among politicians and NHS brass.

My argument is that the death rate does not justify the measures that are being taken: by all means protect the vulnerable (my parents are in that class) but the rest of us have been locked down when the stats absolutely do not justify it.

I haven't even mentioned the economic cataclysm we are facing... that's another story!

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#107

Post by lostlogin »

_Understated_ wrote: post #104
lostlogin wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about. What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PII…

Balance, that's what I'm pushing for. Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed experimental gene therapy still in initial trials. Edit: Remember that none of the media and government published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely important.

Elsewhere in this thread you argue that because only 400 people without underlying conditions have died, restrictions should be removed. The other 100k don’t seem to be of concern. I don’t think ‘balanced reporting’ is the full extent of what you are after.

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#108

Post by tzs »

newacct583 wrote: post #37
mchusma wrote: post #27

The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around? I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily s…

> In the US, this would allow us to end this thing within 90 days. It... would not. We need half a million (edit: billion of course, oops) doses to "end this thing", and those just aren't going to be there from any combination of manufacturers. If that kind of result was really on the table, a new administration and congressional leadership would be moving mountains to get that win. But yes: AZ should probably be app…

The most direct reason for the delay in approving the AZ vaccine in the US is that as of early this month they had not submitted for approval.

They are waiting for the results from a larger US-based trial.

I'm not sure why they aren't going with the same trial data they used to submit requests elsewhere, but it could have something to do with the FDA approval process. The FDA evaluates drug approval requests the way a lot of people were saying the FAA should have evaluated Boeing's 737 Max certification application.

The FDA takes your trial data and then does their own analysis of safety and efficacy. They also have an independent advisory committee that looks over both the company's work and the FDA's work. Many other places, such as the UK, rely more on trusting the company's analysis.

The AZ vaccine was the one that had the error in running the trial that gave some people half of the dose they were suppose to get, and the results suggested that results were better for them than for those who got the full dose. The trial wasn't designed to test half dose vs full dose, and so the set of people who ended up getting half vs full are not really a good set to draw conclusions from.

Perhaps AZ thinks that submitting based on a later trial without that error will overall lead to faster approval than submitting an earlier trial that would probably take longer for the FDA and the independent advisory committee to analyze?

Re: Johnson and Johnson single-shot vaccine appears 66% effective in global trial

#110

Post by lostlogin »

_Understated_ wrote: post #106
thebruce87m wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a “do nothing” scenario we would probably expect hundreds of thousands more vulnerable people dying before their time in the UK, along with who-knows how many 45-64 year olds (and other age groups) due to overwhelmed hospitals. We’ve seen that overwhelmed hospitals can’t do normal things like cancer treatment either, so tally that up too. This is worth some inconvenience and higher taxes to me. I guess some people…

I didn't advocate for "do nothing". Not at all. I live in the UK and we have the NHS so their job is to look after people when they get sick (and, to a certain extent, use preventative measure like education where appropriate). But the UK governments largest spend is the NHS. We pay a fortune every year for it. So if they can't do their job then heads should roll among politicians and NHS brass. My argument is that t…

It isn’t possible to protect the vulnerable while having rampant covid in the young and healthy, society doesn’t work like that.

Here in New Zealand we isolate new arrivals in hotels and they are strictly monitored. There are only a few thousand people there at any given time, and despite the huge effort, covid still escapes into the community every so often.

Post reply on HN