Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85% • Hacker News Board

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#121

Post by chki » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

FjolsvithAase wrote: post #62

ralmeida wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparable individual outcome, worse societal outcome - you still spread it, so no reduction in overall cases, unlike a vaccine.

Yet, with the COVID vaccine, you still spread it, too: https://theexpose.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Pierpont-Why... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733 So, how could the outcome at the societal level be worse?

While a vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing the spread of new cases it is at least somewhat effective.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#122

Post by resoluteteeth » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

RicoElectrico wrote: post #50

We had reports of people who wanted to take weird-ass drugs-of-the-day just to refuse getting vaccinated. And screaming "conspiracy" when their efficacy was not confirmed to be as high as they expected. Good that we have something that actually works, bad that some assholes will use it as an excuse not to get vaxxed, completely missing the point (among others, trying to prevent something worse than Delta).

It would be somewhat ironic if antivaxxers latch onto this drug, because it actually has a possibility of turning out to have bad side effects that will only show up much later (increased rates of cancer), which is a major reason that is given for people not wanting to get vaccinated.

Edit: Actually I was confusing this with molnupiravir; this drug is presumably perfectly safe.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#123

Post by blackbear_ » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

matsemann wrote: post #106

roenxi wrote: post #86

> This is a completely novel molecule... Then do we understand the risk profile of this thing? That sounds like the sort of innovation that people would want to be at the back of the queue for. Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

If the consequence of not taking it is death, I think people would run to the front of the queue, though.

Soo, kinda like for a vaccine?

(And to clarify what I am saying, even though the vaccine does prevent death, there is still considerable push back. Not sure why it will be different for this drug)

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#124

Post by djrogers » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

matsemann wrote: post #106

roenxi wrote: post #86

> This is a completely novel molecule... Then do we understand the risk profile of this thing? That sounds like the sort of innovation that people would want to be at the back of the queue for. Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

If the consequence of not taking it is death, I think people would run to the front of the queue, though.

Sounds like the consequence of not taking it is a 0.5% chance of death, so probably not a lot of running for those who understand COVID death rates.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#125

Post by stronglikedan » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

RicoElectrico wrote: post #50

We had reports of people who wanted to take weird-ass drugs-of-the-day just to refuse getting vaccinated. And screaming "conspiracy" when their efficacy was not confirmed to be as high as they expected. Good that we have something that actually works, bad that some assholes will use it as an excuse not to get vaxxed, completely missing the point (among others, trying to prevent something worse than Delta).

> some assholes will use it as an excuse not to get vaxxed

Well, they've succeeded in holding out long enough, now that there's no longer a good reason to get vaxxed. Because, as most people are starting to realize, the pandemic is over (at least in the US).

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#126

Post by scohesc » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

n8cpdx wrote: post #67

tinus_hn wrote: post #25

So, is this expensive and patented and does it have limited availability?

Does it matter? Vaccine flows like water these days, and at least in the rich world, nearly everyone who needs this chose to be in that position. Making that choice should be incredibly costly.

I think it does matter.

If it's expensive - we'll have government printing more money to afford the pill, like they've been doing for the vaccine, and the general populace for the past 2 years.

But the vaccine is free! Yep... sure.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#127

Post by dbsmith83 » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #35

gameswithgo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For protecting yourself, probably, for protecting others and helping prevent the virus from spreading and mutating, no.

Didn’t we establish last week the vaccine is not effective at stopping the spread of the virus?

No: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#128

Post by School-Cotton » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

resoluteteeth wrote: post #122

RicoElectrico wrote: post #50

We had reports of people who wanted to take weird-ass drugs-of-the-day just to refuse getting vaccinated. And screaming "conspiracy" when their efficacy was not confirmed to be as high as they expected. Good that we have something that actually works, bad that some assholes will use it as an excuse not to get vaxxed, completely missing the point (among others, trying to prevent something worse than Delta).

It would be somewhat ironic if antivaxxers latch onto this drug, because it actually has a possibility of turning out to have bad side effects that will only show up much later (increased rates of cancer), which is a major reason that is given for people not wanting to get vaccinated. Edit: Actually I was confusing this with molnupiravir; this drug is presumably perfectly safe.

Why is the probability of late-appearing side effects higher for this than for the vaccine?

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#129

Post by colordrops » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #87

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #29

> Pfizer’s phase 2/3 trial randomized non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who were at high risk of progressing to severe illness to receive placebo or Paxlovid, a combination of the protease inhibitors Oh, a protease inhibitor you say? I was told those were horse dewormers by the media. This whole thing is bullshit. With this much money at stake we were never going to learn the truth.

'There is no relationship at all between the two drugs, said Dr. William A Petri, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Virginia. “The only way they are alike is that they are both pills,” Petri said. Dr. Kevin J. Downes, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, agreed, “They are dramatically different molecules. The drugs are different in…

Dr. Kevin J. Downes receives money from Pfizer:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/art.41772

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#130

Post by colordrops » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #79

vibrato2 wrote: post #42

Kinda like ivermectin with the same mechanism

'There is no relationship at all between the two drugs, said Dr. William A Petri, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Virginia. “The only way they are alike is that they are both pills,” Petri said. Dr. Kevin J. Downes, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, agreed, “They are dramatically different molecules. The drugs are different in…

Dr. Kevin J. Downes receives money from Pfizer:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/art.41772