Live data from Hacker News

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

fiercebiotech.com

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I though most of the point of vaxing children and other low-risk groups is to stop the spread, not for their own individual safety. Reducing the chance they'll infect grandma. And reducing the circulating pool of infections to prevent more virulent strains from developing. Have I got this wrong?

I thought the vaccines don't stop or even really slow spread that much, especially with Delta variants. At least that's what authorities are saying. My understanding is that the point of vaccines as now explained is to prevent hospitalizations.

They do. If you have a "breakthrough infection", you are just as likely to spread it to someone else as someone who is infected without the vaccine. But you're much less likely to get infected in the first place if you've had the vaccine, so overall much less likely to pass it to others. So the more people who get vaccinated, the slower the spread.

See https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/

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

#572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two possible exit strategies. - Vaccinate everyone who can be vaccinated, at gunpoint. - Allow everyone who is vulnerable to die, at which point the death rates will drop. Choose. Which one do you want?

You can't produce, distribute and vaccinate everyone at gun point fast enough before it mutates away from what your vax targeted. And this strategy ignores animal reservoirs where the virus can reside and come back.

> You can't produce, distribute and vaccinate everyone at gun point

In the US, this is a very bad idea, indeed.

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

#573
post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I though most of the point of vaxing children and other low-risk groups is to stop the spread, not for their own individual safety. Reducing the chance they'll infect grandma. And reducing the circulating pool of infections to prevent more virulent strains from developing. Have I got this wrong?

Yes you have it wrong. That goes against medical ethics. You can't give someone a treatment that is net detrimental to them in order to benefit others.

>net detrimental

We're talking about covid vaccines here.

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

#574
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One one side: great job, pharma industry! We're gonna live forever! On the other side: what are you folks not curing, with your magic powers, just because you know you won't be able to make a buck from it...?

Unfortunately, it's expensive. The cost of R&D to bring a new drug to market is around $1 billion, and this doesn't include the cost of marketing (though it does include the cost of drugs that fail the approval process)(see https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762311 ). At these numbers, it's hard to raise the money unless you think the drug is gonna be profitable.

> The cost of R&D to bring a new drug to market is around $1 billion

This is one of the most well know, tired, scammy talking point big-pharma has used for decades.

Hint: in the very document you linked, htere is a 'costing method' section, you might want to read it a bit more carefully and you will discover the big scam: opportunity cost, not cost.

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

#575
post #558

I do think early treatments are important and that we have strong case studies to support the effectiveness of Ivermectin and high dosage of Vitamin D intake. https://c19early.com/

This is good information to spread. The more we can treat moderate-to-severe COVID at home, the less burden on the hospital system.

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

#576
post #558

I do think early treatments are important and that we have strong case studies to support the effectiveness of Ivermectin and high dosage of Vitamin D intake. https://c19early.com/

And there are a frightening number of people who will say there's not enough data while Pfizer launches R&D for an entirely new drug to get it to market.

Does no one else pay mind to the fact that pharmaceutical companies have zero interest in potential treatment options if they're not under patent anymore? Why do we trust them implicitly but suspect Apple does shady things like employ slave labor and suicide nets, or that Facebook downplays psychological side effects of their products?

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

#577

It’s crazy that money is such a huge incentive. Knowing that a cure for Covid is a potentially $100B market means you throw the kitchen sink at it. Imagine being this lab. Do you think they ever had trouble hiring an assistant? Buying new equipment? Getting bonuses? This environment must be fantastically different from the typical meat grinder of bio R&D.

This is what being an engineer during WW2 must have been like. Near infinite money and resources, but very tough deadlines

Still can't get over WWII, so everyone has to larp.

Truly, imagine having your main frame of reference pretending you are in WWII, for everything else you do in life.

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

#578

It’s crazy that money is such a huge incentive. Knowing that a cure for Covid is a potentially $100B market means you throw the kitchen sink at it. Imagine being this lab. Do you think they ever had trouble hiring an assistant? Buying new equipment? Getting bonuses? This environment must be fantastically different from the typical meat grinder of bio R&D.

Therefore how can you trust this drug? Follow the money! It’s just big science trying to propagate a pandemic to make more money! If this sounds insane, we’ll ok just reflecting the common anti vax sentiments I hear on this web site (ugh).

It won't happen, because the explicit arguments are just pretexts. After The Lancet/Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy (and other popular media figures), the word "vaccine" is now simply triggering of aggressive suspicion. That media panic combining with:

1) the 80s New Age/Self-Help/Healthy Living/Naturopathic flakes,

2) the suspicions of black people who are generally neglected and sometimes abused by the health care industry (over a very long term with sign-off from regulators),

3) and the religious fundamentalist divine punishment crowd (disease exists to punish weakness and evil), and

4) the factual observation that the healthcare industry in the US is hopelessly corrupt from top to bottom, and will not change no matter how strong the political will of the general population, or how organized it is,

...and all combinations thereof, means that this is going to be something that we have to deal with forever. It has nothing to do with whether the vaccine is new or experimental, it's that it's a vaccine. We still don't have universal vaccination for HPV, and that prevents cancer.

The media blames vaccine hesitancy on Republican hucksters, but that's just because they're centrist neolibs and that's what they're paid to do. Republican grifters take advantage of whatever's available; this week they actually became animal rights activists in order to attack Fauci:)

The anti-vax feeling is deeper than that; it's become hopelessly tangled into religion, identity, and anti-authoritarianism. It's not going away. Covid-19 was actually pretty mild when it comes down to it, when a real disease comes along, we're all dead.

I'm actually on a personal countdown until I hear the first argument that this safe, effective, experimental pill is a reason not to take the dangerous, pointless, experimental vaccine, and that big pharma wants you to take the vaccine instead of the pill because reasons.

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

#579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therefore how can you trust this drug? Follow the money! It’s just big science trying to propagate a pandemic to make more money! If this sounds insane, we’ll ok just reflecting the common anti vax sentiments I hear on this web site (ugh).

Every business exists to make money, the same with most people.

[deleted]

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

#580
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.

Why do I feel like this will be the new mouthpiece for antivaxxers?
Post reply on HN