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

EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 209 posts

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#161

Post by surfsvammel »

jleyank wrote: post #36

Probably every drug has risks, many higher than the 1:1,000,000 reported for AZ/J&J. It's always a balance between the risk untreated vs. treated - many cancer drugs will kill you, but slower than they kill the cancer. Contraceptives have various issues, but their "social good" is deemed worthwhile. I've read that they are doing gene analysis to try and determine why these cases appear - is it gender, age, cross-reac…

I think the big issue is that people are afraid of the active risk of the vaccine (more so than the passive risk of not getting the shot). I think that even rational people have this fear to some degree. We need to help people deal with that fear. Something I see very little of.

I know that kind of fear personally, I’m on meds with risks orders of magnitude worse than that vaccines and that have been (and still is) a struggle for me. I can do the math, and I understand the risks, but taking an active risk is just hard.

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#162

Post by dillondoyle »

8note wrote: post #153
jleyank wrote: post #36

Probably every drug has risks, many higher than the 1:1,000,000 reported for AZ/J&J. It's always a balance between the risk untreated vs. treated - many cancer drugs will kill you, but slower than they kill the cancer. Contraceptives have various issues, but their "social good" is deemed worthwhile. I've read that they are doing gene analysis to try and determine why these cases appear - is it gender, age, cross-reac…

Does the calculus change based in how many people you'll be giving this to? A 1:1M chance is much different to me if you give it to 3 people or 2 Billion

Along that line i'd be interested to hear insight here from a stat person or someone who does these studies.

At those low %s what are the chances the actual clot rate say doubles, quadruples as we keep getting larger audiences.

With such low numbers random chance would not likely show up in small studies.

So what are for instance the statistical chances of seeing a 10x increase in clotting going to 250mm population?

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#163

Post by polack »

JamisonM wrote: post #152
polack wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU have options to buy 100 million doses of AZ vaccine for 2022, but they need to make up their minds now if they want them or not. With AZ's history of not delivering on time I think this is a no-brainer, especially since we don't know if the AZ vaccine will work on the new Covid variants. Why pour more money down the AZ drain when we have better alternatives?

It is a no-brainer to spend this money. Someone in the world is going to have a use for these vaccines, buy them and then give them away if you don't need them in the end but in the meantime just book more supply. 18 months from now if the world is flushing COVID-19 vaccines down toilets due to surpluses every dollar will have been worth spending, the downsides are too great.

The problem is that this option is to buy AZ's current vaccine that have a high probability of being ineffective in 18 months. EU is not saying that it won't buy from AZ, but as of now it's not well spent money to buy their current one to be delivered in 18 months. By then all companies will have new better vaccines and the EU would have to fork up a shitload of money on the new AZ vaccine and just write the old of as another loss while the AZ execs get another fat bonus paid by the EU citizens.

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#164

Post by mynameisvlad »

throwawayboise wrote: post #141
tempestn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare vaccines to the overall universe of drugs like that. The main difference is that drugs that are intended to be taken over the long term can develop long term side effects. Vaccines are taken once or a few times, and then they're done. The parent is correct that complications arising from vaccines years after they're taken just isn't something that should be expected to happen.

Would your feeling change if we discover that yearly boosters of the COVID vaccine will be required indefinitely?

The flu vaccine is still called a vaccine and it’s delivered yearly and while not required is highly recommended indefinitely.

Why would this be any different?

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#165

Post by SamReidHughes »

agubelu wrote: post #37
refraincomment wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Bureaucracy, and scarcity. Personal freedom to buy it would be great if there were more than plenty for everyone, but right now they should be given to those who have a much higher risk of severe complications and/or death. Not even the US allows private selling right now.

Charging money allows higher risk people to purchase it.

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#167

Post by s1artibartfast »

s_dev wrote: post #46
syntaxing wrote: post #39

Seems like mRNA vaccines is winning the the race against other emerging technology like viral vector. If we manage to figure out the nanolipids to live in better temperature conditions, mRNA will change our generation.

Seems incredible now the University of Pennsylvania told the inventor mRNA that their contributions weren't worthwhile and let them go. https://billypenn.com/2020/12/29/university-pennsylvania-cov... And now on social media they've done a full 180 and are acting as if it were their contribution to the world when the reality is quite different.

Im not sure what exactly the criticism of UPenn is here.

Is the criticism that the university mistreated Karikó or set unrealistic expectations?

IS the criticism that the university lacked the foresight to know how valuable her contributions would be 30 years later and didn't adequately support or compensate her?

I don’t know where this idea that untenured university faculty should should not be expected to meet the objectives and and milestones of the university comes from. They took the risk and employed her for 16 years (1989-2005) before she published a groundbreaking study, then another 8 years, before leaving to be a VP at BioNTech. 7 years later, the technology was demonstrated to be incredibly valuable.

Does U Penn deserve no credit for the 24 years of work done by university faculty and researchers in university labs?

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#168

Post by tempestn »

throwawayboise wrote: post #141
tempestn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare vaccines to the overall universe of drugs like that. The main difference is that drugs that are intended to be taken over the long term can develop long term side effects. Vaccines are taken once or a few times, and then they're done. The parent is correct that complications arising from vaccines years after they're taken just isn't something that should be expected to happen.

Would your feeling change if we discover that yearly boosters of the COVID vaccine will be required indefinitely?

No, because again, you take the vaccine, it causes an immune response, and then it leaves your system. Even if you then take it again a year later. It's not like a drug that you're regularly taking, which remains in your system. What would change my mind is if I saw vaccinologists explaining a mechanism by which a vaccine could cause long-term side effects, rather than the opposite.

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#169

Post by agubelu »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #165
agubelu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracy, and scarcity. Personal freedom to buy it would be great if there were more than plenty for everyone, but right now they should be given to those who have a much higher risk of severe complications and/or death. Not even the US allows private selling right now.

Charging money allows higher risk people to purchase it.

How exactly is selling vaccines directly to private citizens going to fix the underlying issue, which is insufficient production?

Re: EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry

#170

Post by Hallucinaut »

polack wrote: post #163
JamisonM wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a no-brainer to spend this money. Someone in the world is going to have a use for these vaccines, buy them and then give them away if you don't need them in the end but in the meantime just book more supply. 18 months from now if the world is flushing COVID-19 vaccines down toilets due to surpluses every dollar will have been worth spending, the downsides are too great.

The problem is that this option is to buy AZ's current vaccine that have a high probability of being ineffective in 18 months. EU is not saying that it won't buy from AZ, but as of now it's not well spent money to buy their current one to be delivered in 18 months. By then all companies will have new better vaccines and the EU would have to fork up a shitload of money on the new AZ vaccine and just write the old of a…

Isn't AZ selling the vaccine at cost? Won't AZ also have the opportunity to improve their vaccine (or delivery protocol)? Won't more data be available in one year with which to make these decisions?
Post reply on HN