Live data from Hacker News

Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

merck.com

251–260 of 294 posts

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't we already own a portion of what gets created though? If Merck makes a boatload of money off of this, the taxpayers will indeed be taking a cut.

>If Merck makes a boatload of money off of this, the taxpayers will indeed be taking a cut. Merck's effective tax rate was 15% in 2019 and 20% in 2020[0] They make boatloads of money by underpaying their taxes [1]: In 2004 Merck disclosed that it might owe the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) some $2 billion after the agency notified the company that it was disallowing deductions Merck had taken since 1993 relatin…

That's 15%-20% we the taxpayers own then :)

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#252
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "fair" have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that your proposal maximizes the amount of health-improving interventions that society will receive in the future? Do you have any reason to conclude that what you're suggesting will be even a slight improvement?

You’re sounding rather aggressive. It seems reasonable that if I finance X% of something, I get to enjoy X% of it. Or Y%, adjusted for non-monetary investment by someone else. It seems strange that the state finances (drug development) research, the companies say “cheers” and proceed to keep all the profits. Such profits could for example go towards universal health care improvements.

Maybe we want different things from the US government and its health care system. I'd like to optimize health outcomes. You have some proposals. Can you explain how they lead to something better than the status quo? What are the unintended consequences? Do drug companies invest in less drug development if they get X% less from developing drugs? Have you taken this into account in your advocacy for enjoying the X%?

Or maybe you have a different objective?

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#253
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Studies on ivermectin are mixed, and it seems like the ones that showed positive effects had falsified data[1]. Additionally, this trial does not demonstrate that Molnupiravir is ineffective after hospitalization. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s...

No, one of the positive studies about ivermectin had questionable data. There are dozens of studies with positive results. This post and the article you linked are misinformation. Edit: I don't normally comment on downvotes but the sentiment expressed by the silent downvoters in this thread is pretty gross. We're trying to have a discussion here, but clearly certain perspectives are not allowed, even if supported by…

The Science™ works by consensus. Your papers are irrelevant, and not part of the consensus, therefore you are wrong, because that's how the scientific method works.

Have you considered taking likely mutagenic drugs with no history of what the side effects may be that are well supported by The Science™ instead?

Downvote away, I've got over 12k karma to burn, sadly you can only burn 4 of them.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#254
post #6

Will this affect mandate requirements, if as effective as it’s claimed? If so we don't need to reach hard to achieve 95% vaccination rates and we can get closer to a normal life.

Hopefully not. mandates are great and we need more forced Medical procedures. Maybe forced sterilization or lobotomies will finally return.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can't be bothered to Google" and "convenient" aren't quite the same thing. The information you seek is readily available. The two have the exact same liability setup. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/30/false-cla... > “There are no liability or compensation differences between a countermeasure approved under an EUA or one that has received full FDA approval,” confirmed an HHS spokesperson. Pfizer al…

"The PREP Act designation means that claims related to coronavirus vaccines are covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which was set up to handle vaccine lawsuits. ... The liability protections afforded under the PREP Act are tied to the declared public health emergency and not whether the vaccine is sold under an EUA" OK... beca…

Can you explain why you think the “Countermeasures Injury COMPENSATION Program” doesn’t include compensation?

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no policy or health care expert, but maybe because front-line and hospital workers are exposed to extremely large viral loads which seem to be related to the severity of the disease, and taking one HCW off the front-lines and adding them to the sick in the ICUs is worse than one less HCW and the same ICU level? This seems like you are trying to start a flamewar about vaccine mandates, BTW.

Something extremely frustrating about virtually all reporting to date is that I haven't seen any statistics as to infection and reinfection rates among front line workers. The implication is that immunity post exposure/infection doesn't exist, but I suspect that this data is being deliberately withheld because it would suggest that frontline workers don't need vaccines, or at the very least don't need a mandate.

> I suspect that this data is being deliberately withheld because it would suggest that frontline workers don't need vaccines, or at the very least don't need a mandate.

Of all the possible reasons you couldn't find this data, a vast conspiracy is the most likely cause? Come on.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#257

I think it's disappointing that this thread has devolved into a political discussion that is hardly related to the topic. The scientific/medical achievement here seems significant. As an MD, the difference between calling in a script for a pill and arranging for outpatient infusion therapies is vast.

Personally, it's disappointing the hideous fees MD's and hospitals charge - - not to mention the fact the Molnupiravir costs $255 PER PILL, and most all the research funding was with taxpayer money to begin with.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#258

Disclaimer: I'm not promoting Ivermectin here, don't get me wrong. I just want to cover my bases as this announcement is definitely going to be used by people to support their conspiracy theory. Earlier this year Merck the manufacturer of Ivermectin issued this [0] statement saying that Ivermectin isn't useful for preventing/treating Covid-19 and people shouldn't take it. Some people explained that with the fact that…

Almost a year ago, nih.gov wrote about a study, 'Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

Over one year ago, Nature said ivermectin has antiviral properties. 'It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses.'

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

Literature says Ivermectin has antiviral properties. It is cheap and has few side effects. It appears to be safe and useful enough to be used as a prophylactic for those who suspect they have been exposed to the virus.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No change there. Same recourse for both. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/fda-approval-of-pfizer-vac... > Does PREP Act liability protection extend to Comirnaty? > Yes. The government invoked the PREP Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the terms of that act, "covered persons" are granted certain immunity from liability for activities related to "covered countermeasures." Covered persons include essentia…

Ah, even worse than I expected. I should've known. It's funny how they triumphantly phrase it as a good thing that the public should take on all of the risk, while the most powerful take on virtually none. Furthermore, there's now an enormous incentive to lobby for never ceasing the public health emergency, since at that point they'd lose their enhanced liability protection.

Socialize risk, privatize profit. Standard MO for the corrupt corporate-political regime.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do not want to be vaccinated What's the reason for this? The vaccine has been approved fully by the FDA and hundreds of millions of people have received it. It's none of your business why they don't want to be vaccinated. If science demonstrates that COVID survivors have strong immunity, why should they be forced to be vaccinated as well? We do not force people who can show immunity to measles, mumps, and rubella t…

I wonder if the answer to all of this changes if insurance companies decide that covering the cost of laboratory confirmation of covid 19 antibodies or the cost covering the expenses related to hospitalization exceed the cost of vaccination people who may not need it. If Aetna decided to not cover hospitalization if you are not vaccinated (or I'll give you laboratory confirmed immune), then it would be an entirely di…

I find it interesting that you're talking about ways to coerce people to vaccinate when the discussion here is how you deal with people who are known to have survived a COVID infection and thus have natural immunity. You seem to be conflating the immunologically naive with vaccine naive. Why? What is your intention?

Over 43 million Americans have already tested positive for COVID. I don't believe there's an official count of the number of people who have tested positive for antibodies, but speaking to your comment about cost, an antibody test is under $50.

https://www.labcorp.com/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/individ...

> Labcorp will bill the cost of the COVID-19 antibody test directly to your health plan if you are insured, or if you are uninsured, Labcorp will bill the appropriate government program. The cost of the test is $42.13 and is based on rates established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). In the event that your health plan, or applicable government program does not cover the cost of the test, you may receive an invoice from Labcorp for up to $42.13.

Nothing you wrote addresses the scientific evidence, which is that people with natural immunity have protection that is not inferior to that provided by vaccines. In fact, the evidence increasingly shows that their protection is far superior.

Why can't you just leave the tens of millions of Americans who already have a confirmed history of COVID recovery alone? Why do you feel they need to be coerced by the government and their employers to receive a vaccine when the science shows they have higher levels of protection?

Post reply on HN