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

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

fiercebiotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

Post by twofornone »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #576
stevev wrote: 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, o…

The real scandal would be that ivermectin worked and therefore invalidated the emergency vaccine authorization, but I doubt that will ever see the light of day given the coordinated media blitz against "horse paste".

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

#602

Post by throwawayboise »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #520
mostertoaster wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I think it will be gladly accepted by unvaccinated folk. The reason being is most unvaccinated people don’t believe it isn’t effective, they don’t like being forced to protect themselves by a bunch of moral busybodies. I just accepted as soon as we saw that covid was spreading so quickly, welp I’m gonna get that. I figured I wouldn’t be that affected by it and wasn’t. Our parents said, well if I get it I get it, a…

>The reason being is most unvaccinated people don’t believe it isn’t effective, they don’t like being forced to protect themselves by a bunch of moral busybodies. I think this is something that's very understated in public discussion around COVID-19, I got vaccinated because I weighed up the odds and thought it made sense from both a social and a personal cost/benefit perspective. I didn't get vaccinated because I wa…

> vaccines mean we can permanently rid ourselves of masks, distancing, and other authoritarian restrictions

They said that, and it turned out to also be a lie. I got the vaccine because I was threatened with loss of employment if I didn't, and enticed by a promise that frequent testing, social distancing, and mask-wearing would not be required for the vaccinated. They pretty quickly reneged on that. To say that I am infuriated is putting it mildly. I obviously cannot undo the vaccine that I didn't want and was forced/coerced into taking.

They have destroyed any faith I had in their promises. I will most certainly now refuse any further demands along these lines, whether for flu shots, boosters, or whatever. Fool me once, shame on you.

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

#603

Post by yosito »

refurb wrote: post #449
yosito wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months. If this is a molecule with a short half-life that is broken down and expelled by the body, it isn't going to have random side effects that show up months in the future.

As someone who worked in toxicology, this is absolutely a false statement. This molecule is a covalent binder - it basically attaches itself permanently to proteins. It absolutely could have effects long after the free molecule is metabolized and excreted. The molecule is designed to be selective for the Covid protease but off-target effects are inevitable. Do I think that is likely? No, because the FDA isn’t stupid…

> this is absolutely a false statement. This molecule is a covalent binder

That's why I said if, I know nothing about the molecule.

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

#604

Post by Karawebnetwork »

dymk wrote: post #296
10x-dev wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found it strange that some Americans focus on politeness above all. Of all the problems in your story, the employee shouting is the least 'wrong'. You've got a woman who won't wear a mask, yourself who sneaked in without a mask, and that's just in that moment of time, but somehow the employee who has to deal with that behavior all day every day is the bad person because they lost their cool. It's one of t…

He’s vaccinated, so it seems a little dramatic to be calling OP a bad person and that they suck.

The vaccine protects you but still allows you to carry and spread a viral load. The mask protects people around you but not yourself but limiting the viral load that you can spread.

By being a vaccinated unmasked person in a crowd of non-vaccinated people, you possibly become a super spreader.

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

#605

Post by trhway »

fknorangesite wrote: post #592
president wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to understand why this viewpoint exists. We are all logical people. The difference is in the trust of public media and government. Both sides of the argument are mostly right in what they believe given the information they are consuming. My suggestion - read sources from both sides before deciding that anyone slightly against Covid hysteria is misinformed and is an anti-vaxxer. Second suggestion, anti-vaxxer is a…

> My suggestion - read sources from both sides I assure you I have; only one of those sides has any intellectual merit.

Please show intellectual merit in the government mandate for vaccine which:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

" A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha." ( and i was saying that months ago just based on obvious arithmetic on public data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982 and was labeled as anti-vaxxer, i guess now it is me, the journal Nature and the study authors are all anti-vaxxers)

"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."

There is nothing wrong or unique about a vaccine being not effective in reducing transmission and spread. We have for example that with a flu vaccine each year. What unique and wrong is the vaccine mandate and enforcement of those failed Covid vaccines which plays right into the hands of the opposition to the vaccines in general which i think would result in a lot of damage down the road.

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

#606

Post by _ea1k »

colordrops wrote: post #110

Does anyone have a sense as to when US society will completely eliminate COVID measures? Is it just me or is there no clear exit criteria anymore? This will go on forever without exit criteria.

There won't be defined exit criteria. Each state will exit when its people decide the exiting is worth the risk.

Some places will do that earlier than others, and quite a few practically already have.

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

#609

Post by kazinator »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #461
thehappypm wrote: post #390

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.

I don't think it's fair to say that it's just money. There's also a global crisis and a huge need for such a drug.

Pharma doesn't do charity though. Drug risky is very expensive and highly risky. It's risky whether you research a drug for some disease that ten people have in the world, or for a pandemic.

Research related to the pandemic is de-risked by some margin and that alone makes it attractive.

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

#610

Post by neuronexmachina »

bena wrote: post #304
dymk wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that’s the joke

It's a bad one. Because it only works if the numbers are the same across both states. But Missouri is doing better than Kansas. So unless the virus is somehow less contagious in Missouri, it seems like Kansas is just being an idiot in this case.

I was curious, and it looks like the metrics for Kansas and Missouri for infections, mask use, hospitalizations/deaths, and social distancing are all pretty similar: https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/kans...
Post reply on HN