Live data from Hacker News

Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

heraldscotland.com

41–50 of 361 posts

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#41
post #19

Data is very encouraging. Presently this battle is essentially a race between the current vaccines (which data indicates are very effective against current strains) and eventual variants that will make the current vaccines less effective (or in the worst case ineffective). The mutations aren’t really a question of if just when. Vaccine data on some new strains is concerning and potentially an early warning of things…

The mutations are far more likely if you give Regeneron to cancer patients and other immuno-compromised people. What an ethical problem... give a therapy knowing that the therapy will kill off the virus identified by the therapy but with a higher chance that mutations in the patient become free to propagate, or don't administer the immuno-therapy to the most vulnerable people in an attempt to stem early mutation? Since only the rich are getting Regeneron, it really is a case of class warfare.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#42
post #6

More interesting to know does it lead to a significant drop in transmission?

I don't mean to imply that this is your intention at all, but it's a false choice. Both questions are interesting; no need to set them up as if they were in tension with one another.

I meant less interesting as in all the studies/trials have already confirmed that the vaccines significantly reduce severe symptoms...the effect on transmission is still an open question from what I understand.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission. I know what you're driving at and it's all pretty interesting - but counterintuitively I think it's way more effective overall to reduce transmission than it is to reduce severity. If you make the disease half as deadly, then pretty simply half as many people die. But if you make the disease half as transmissible, then the compound impact means that far…

True. But if you make the disease not deadly at all, then no one dies, regardless of how transmissible it is.

Untill you visit a place with a significant un-vaccinated population.

This has happened with other diseases.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission. I know what you're driving at and it's all pretty interesting - but counterintuitively I think it's way more effective overall to reduce transmission than it is to reduce severity. If you make the disease half as deadly, then pretty simply half as many people die. But if you make the disease half as transmissible, then the compound impact means that far…

True. But if you make the disease not deadly at all, then no one dies, regardless of how transmissible it is.

The problem is that if the vaccinated population carries the virus, then the risk of being infected increases for the unvaccinated population. It doesn't matter if the vaccine reduces the severity of the virus if you haven't received the vaccine.

On the other hand, if the vaccine reduces the transmissibility of the virus, then everybody collectively benefits from each additional vaccination.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#45
post #6

More interesting to know does it lead to a significant drop in transmission?

Why is that more interesting? Reducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission, if not more important. If we could sufficiently reduce (or eliminate) severe cases and deaths, it wouldn't matter how contagious it was. Common colds are highly transmissible, but no one worries about them much since they very rarely cause severe illness.

Only in that the effect on severe illness (reduction) has already been demonstrated through the studies/trials, this is not really news. Transmission effect is still being understood.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is giving both doses. It's just that they are spacing them out at 12 weeks instead of 3-4 weeks. The idea is that this gives more at-risk people substantial protection more quickly.

> The UK is giving both doses. It's just that they are spacing them out at 12 weeks instead of 3-4 weeks. Are they doing that for all vaccines, or just the Oxford/AstraZeneca one? Because that appears to be the recommended and most effective interval for the Oxford vaccine, but not for the others. (Note that the mix of vaccines approved for use differs considerably from country to country; Oxford/AstraZeneca is not i…

They're doing it for both Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer, which are the two approved vaccines in the UK at the moment.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission. I know what you're driving at and it's all pretty interesting - but counterintuitively I think it's way more effective overall to reduce transmission than it is to reduce severity. If you make the disease half as deadly, then pretty simply half as many people die. But if you make the disease half as transmissible, then the compound impact means that far…

True. But if you make the disease not deadly at all, then no one dies, regardless of how transmissible it is.

Isn' that how you end up with a leaky vaccine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease

While it seems rare, it also seems like a much deadlier outcome.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#48

Until we have challenge trials, how do we know whether or not other variables, such as natural herd immunity and seasonality are not also significant contributing factors to the 'substantial reduction'?

The numbers from Israel seem to show the 60+ age group that has been vaccinated with two doses is seeing a sharp drop in hospital admissions compared to the under 60 group that is still mostly unvaccinated. This should rule out the herd immunity and seasonality arguments.

https://i.imgur.com/Tu3ckZN.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/1eP5sbi.jpg

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#49
post #15
post #11

"By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were shown to reduce the risk of hospitalisation from Covid-19 by up to 85 per cent and 94 per cent, respectively. Among those aged 80 years and over - one of the highest risk groups - vaccination was associated with an 81 per cent reduction in hospitalisation risk in the fourth week, when the results for both vaccines we…

The AZ vaccine is more effective than the BioNTech one? That's extremely interesting.

Edit: I'm an idiot who was trying to do too many things at once and misread. Removing my incorrect commentary on 95% CI numbers. I'll leave the excerpt from the study since that's useful info.

>Findings: The first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76 to 91) for COVID-19 related hospitalisation at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 94% (95% CI 73 to 99). Results of combined vaccine effect for prevention of COVID-19 related hospitalisation were comparable when restricting the analysis to those aged ≥80 years (81%; 95% CI 65 to 90 at 28-34 days post-vaccination).`

[0] https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/scotland_firstvaccine...

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#50
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP is correct, the link you've posted shows that around 600,000 have had 2 doses, and over 15 million have had 1. The UK is pushing to get all 'at risk' people one dose (around 49% of people getting the vaccine) as a priority, with the second dose following within 12 weeks.

That's 600,000 times OP is in correct.

Or OP is 3.5% incorrect.
Post reply on HN