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

171–180 of 361 posts

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

#171

Post by dev1n »

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-…

No. People (extraordinarily healthy people) are suffering pulmonary embolisms (and thus hospitalized) weeks after they have been cleared from the virus. There is a very, very, very long tail to this disease outside of the initial 2 - 4 weeks of being sick.

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

#172

Post by kop316 »

iso1631 wrote: post #139
kop316 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Must be awful - to lose someone from covid over the last 12 months would be bad, but to be so close to the finish line....

Yeah....I can only imagine what they are going through. That was why I posted that comment, I can't do anything for her, but I can hope that others will see that and take heed.

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

#173

Post by _coveredInBees »

teawrecks wrote: post #135
vmchale wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The point isn't that we use hospital admissions as a metric to infer cases or some other metric, it IS the metric that matters. The problem over the last year wasn't that there exists a person who is at risk, it's that there didn't exist any healthcare system capacity to treat them. From very early on in the pandemic, it seemed to me like our goal for optimal balance between caution/risk was to try and maintain the h…

Call me a renegade, but I think the only goal should be to minimize the total number of deaths from Covid. Trying to maximize sustainable medical system occupancy is almost certainly not aligned with the former goal.

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

#174

Post by colecut »

ben_ wrote: post #158
metalliqaz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been "fatigued" for 3+ years due to having children. Life goes on.

Don't be so crass, people are suffering because of this that didn't chose to

That is a not insignificant percentage of parents

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

#175

Post by aantix »

dev1n wrote: post #171
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-…

No. People (extraordinarily healthy people) are suffering pulmonary embolisms (and thus hospitalized) weeks after they have been cleared from the virus. There is a very, very, very long tail to this disease outside of the initial 2 - 4 weeks of being sick.

>People (extraordinarily healthy people) are suffering pulmonary embolism

What are the numbers?

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

#176

Post by cnlevy »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #116
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 think the figures from Israel show you are at increased risk of infection for the first week after the vaccine is administered. Presumably because people are already starting to change their behaviour.

It could also be because people got contaminated IN vaccination centers when coming for their first vaccine dose. Told from a doctor working in Israel.

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

#177

Post by dragontamer »

scrollaway wrote: post #170
dragontamer wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As we vaccinate the people at the highest risk of hospitalization, the correlation will change: Numbers may stay very similar, but hospitalizations should go way down. Then we'll know in 2 weeks to change the policy and account for it. Note that vaccinations will *also* cause the %positive and case# to decline. USA is approaching 15% vaccinated at over 95% efficacy means that you'll have 15% fewer cases (as well as…

Pretty much all countries are distributing vaccine to the elderly / at-risk population first. We're doing that for the obvious reason that the most-at-risk population is most-at-risk, and thus most at risk of hospitalization. Concretely, that means hospitalization rates should decline a LOT faster than community spread. This is going to be less visible in countries that have their shit together and are able to vaccin…

The #1 group in the USA was not "at-risk" population, but doctors, nurses, and other front-line staff. The idea is that these groups are seeing many, many COVID19 patients and therefore have a big risk at spreading the virus around.

Once this "Priority 1A" group was vaccinated, then age 75+ individuals were vaccinated in Priority 1B. Even then, Postal Office employees and Grocery Store workers (other "high impact" workers) are in the 1B and 1C prioritization queues.

With efforts being to reopen schools, 1B also includes school-teachers (stop-the-spread focus). So a 21-year-old healthy school teacher is prioritized over a 67-year old obese person (despite the 67-year old's higher risk factors).

---------

So at least in the USA: there's a significant effort being placed on high-impact "stop the spread" kind of vaccination effort. There is an element of "save lives", but stopping the spread also saves lives. So its a difficult calculus. (USA has some risk-factor prioritizations... 1B with 75+ age, and 1C with 65+ age + comorbidities like obesity. But again, Grocery Store workers are in 1C as well).

I realize other countries have different priorities. But hey, I live in the USA so my understanding of things will have a USA-slant. These 1B / 1C things are also CDC recommended. Different states (like Texas) are more aggressively stop-the-spread than CDC guidelines (while other states may lean more towards risk-factor based "save lives / prevent hospitalizations"). 50-different states, 50+ different policies. Welcome to America.

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

#178

Post by CraigJPerry »

dragontamer wrote: post #137
scrollaway wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information? As we vaccinate the people at the highest risk of hospitalization, the correlation will change: Numbers may stay very similar, but hospitalizations should go way down.

> As we vaccinate the people at the highest risk of hospitalization, the correlation will change: Numbers may stay very similar, but hospitalizations should go way down. Then we'll know in 2 weeks to change the policy and account for it. Note that vaccinations will *also* cause the %positive and case# to decline. USA is approaching 15% vaccinated at over 95% efficacy means that you'll have 15% fewer cases (as well as…

>> approaching 15% vaccinated at over 95% efficacy means that you'll have 15% fewer cases

That’s not how it works, you’re missing a variable (prevalence).

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

#179

Post by wcfields »

I may get downvoted for this, but genuinely curious if there's vaccine tourism (not that I'm in a position to get on a jet to get a shot).

Eg, if the wait time is long for my group in the US/UK/Wherever, can I book a flight to UAE or Cuba to get a vaccine at the airport?

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

#180

Post by NortySpock »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #164
wpietri wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you haven't been following what's going on with "Long Covid". But even among people who aren't hospitalized, there's lasting harm: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270 I know somebody who's had this. Despite never being hospitalized, after getting sick they had to take a long medical leave from work in hopes of getting their strength back. That's worlds away from "sick for a few days…

I have been following "long COVID" reports. Firstly, much of the mass media coverage is misleading, often intentionally so in pursuit of clicks and advertising revenue. A lot of the people claiming to have debilitating "long COVID" were never actually tested positive for COVID in the first place. They are the broadly the same demographic that, before COVID, were claiming to have "chronic Lyme" or whatever. Certainly…

> A lot of the people claiming to have debilitating "long COVID" were never actually tested positive for COVID in the first place.

Do you have a citation for this claim?

Post reply on HN