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

Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

heraldscotland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 361 posts

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

#121

Post by standardUser »

tengbretson wrote: post #30
carbocation wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It actually can put them in tension. If the vaccine only stops symptoms it can remove the selective pressure to be less deadly and can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall. If this is the situation we are in, then it would make the most sense to only vaccinate the most vulnerable, and not vaccinate the bulk of the population in order to keep the virus selected for survival + transmissibility.

"...can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall"

That is wildly speculative. Pathogens do not evolve inevitably towards maximum lethality.

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

#122

Post by kop316 »

ageitgey wrote: post #18
kop316 wrote: 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…

I sorry to hear about your brother's Mother-in-Law. I just wanted to concur for anyone who is not yet aware: all the data so far (from multiple studies) shows that there is zero or near zero protection for the first two weeks after the first dose. It's not until the third/fourth weeks after the dose that you start to see substantial protection, with higher protection the fourth week.

Thanks. Sadly we just heard she will not make it and is being moved to Hospice.

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

#123

Post by [deleted] »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #8
kuu wrote: post #3

If I'm not wrong, UK is only giving the first dose for now. I feel glad and relieve that with only one dose it is working. There seems to be a light at the end of this tunnel :)

I think you are wrong, all my relatives who have had theres have had two or know when their next one is I belive

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by tengbretson »

standardUser wrote: post #121
tengbretson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually can put them in tension. If the vaccine only stops symptoms it can remove the selective pressure to be less deadly and can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall. If this is the situation we are in, then it would make the most sense to only vaccinate the most vulnerable, and not vaccinate the bulk of the population in order to keep the virus selected for survival + transmissibility.

"...can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall" That is wildly speculative. Pathogens do not evolve inevitably towards maximum lethality.

> That is wildly speculative.

I'm not sure what more you should be asking for in a discussion about "what could happen"

Of course it is speculation. And it is based on what we know about other viruses at large and the our current best information about covid.

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

#125

Post by hristov »

aclimatt wrote: post #108

Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…

The problem with that sort of thinking is if you let the virus circulate and multiply you are risking mutations that are resistant to the vaccines. There already are two mutations that are already somewhat resistant to the vaccines according to initial anecdotal evidence.

But practically speaking most nations are taking this approach and have been reducing social distancing measures when hospitalization rates go down. (Often with negative results.)

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

#126

Post by selimthegrim »

jhayward wrote: post #110
xur17 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember what studies this data was from? I'd be curious to look at it. The fda filing [0] for Moderna seemed to indicate a decent uptick in protection > 14 days after dose 1 (which seems to mirror the studies you are referencing). I see a "Vaccine Efficacy" of 92.1% for > 14 days after dose 1, which seems to be fairly close to the ~95% efficacy I've seen described for 14 days after dose 2. [0] https://www.fda…

We should note that the >14-day efficacy is presumed to decay fairly rapidly, thus the need for the 2nd dose to cement the response long-term, as well as eke out the last few percent of efficacy.

Then why is the delay in second doses being encouraged?

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

#127

Post by inglor_cz »

vmchale wrote: post #118
aclimatt wrote: post #108

Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…

> hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? From a control theory perspective, it's one of the worst measures because it's delayed. Much more efficient to measure cases - then you don't need restricted social life as long.

In the wild phase of the pandemic, yes.

But once enough people are vaccinated, the pattern may change. For example, you may still catch quite a lot of cases through PCR testing which is very sensitive, but the share of asymptomatic cases will be much higher and the share of people who are going to suffer a severe case much smaller.

The entire societal signature of the disease will change depending on vaccination levels and maybe even particular vaccines used.

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

#128

Post by xur17 »

jhayward wrote: post #110
xur17 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember what studies this data was from? I'd be curious to look at it. The fda filing [0] for Moderna seemed to indicate a decent uptick in protection > 14 days after dose 1 (which seems to mirror the studies you are referencing). I see a "Vaccine Efficacy" of 92.1% for > 14 days after dose 1, which seems to be fairly close to the ~95% efficacy I've seen described for 14 days after dose 2. [0] https://www.fda…

We should note that the >14-day efficacy is presumed to decay fairly rapidly, thus the need for the 2nd dose to cement the response long-term, as well as eke out the last few percent of efficacy.

But that does seem to imply that 2 weeks post the first shot (assuming the second shot will be given soon after), folks are pretty much at maximum immunity.

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

#129

Post by dragontamer »

aclimatt wrote: post #108

Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…

> Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures?

Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information?

Hospitalizations are weeks delayed from COVID# or %Positive spikes. Its a slow moving disease: taking 5 to 14 days before people feel sick, and then a week or two AFTER that before people decide to go to the hospital.

As such, if you see a spike of hospitalization, you're already 3-weeks late to the results (ie: hospital spikes are associated with infections that occurred 3+ weeks ago).

In contrast, watching COVID# or %Positive numbers gets you much closer to the ~5-14 day period where symptoms appear (and thanks to contact tracing, some people may test themselves before symptoms arrive: gaining a few precious days in the information war). Hospitalizations and Deaths are strongly correlated (with a few weeks delay). So you're effectively gaining a week-or-two worth of information.

Its better to be only 1-2 weeks behind (watching COVID#), rather than being 3-4 weeks behind (watching Hospitalization#).

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

#130

Post by iso1631 »

dboreham wrote: post #62
Lewton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older people with COVID bad enough that they end up in the hospital usually stay there for 3-6 weeks

Data from personal friends contradicts this. 2-8 days in my sample.

That's called an annectdote.

https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_8ab408ad-8fb0-5f74-...

Overall, the average hospital stay for COVID-19 for all ages is 22.4 days, just over three weeks. The length of stay is slightly longer, 23.5 days, for regular hospital admissions and shorter for ICU patients at 16 days, likely because ICU patients go on to die in the hospital.

That's based over thousands of patients.

> Patients in their 50s, who make up the third largest group of hospitalizations at 17.8% of all admissions, have, to date, had the longest average hospital stays at 27.5 days on average.

> Older patients have slightly lower average stays than middle-aged Hoosiers — again, likely because they are more prone to die in care than younger patients

> The average stays for patients in their 30s is 16.4 days

Post reply on HN