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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by deworms »

rob_c wrote: post #677
deworms wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By now you should have noticed that you're not "getting back on with your lives" no matter how good a boy you are and how many freedoms you give up. You should have resisted this from the start, this is your choice.

Frankly given the work I've done demonstrating the anti science direction policy has taken and the work I've done to call out the bad "science" since the start you should be thankful for the work I've done. As for further "resistance" as soon as the 5G anti-vax nutters started i started looking out for me by putting money in the bank. My response from idiots insulting me over the last 2 years is too stop carrying abo…

Hey, we're all in it together. I'm not the one "staying at home" or wearing masks though, so ironically this affects me less than it does you. We don't have any vaccine-related restrictions where I live either.

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

#682

Post by thehappypm »

charles_f wrote: post #332

> compared to 41 hospitalizations and 10 deaths in the placebo cohort This makes me weirdly sad. Can you imagine entering the trial for a long sought drug against a deadly disease that turn out to be working, and end up in the control group? I know that there's more to it (it's necessary, they knew, it could have not worked, plainly be nocive, etc.) but it's like being unlucky twice in a row and die out of that while…

Yeah, I would consider that 10 people likely did not die because they enrolled and got lucky.

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

#683

Post by vkou »

lettergram wrote: post #271
jjuel wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure we don't understand the long term risk of getting COVID either right? I mean it has not even been around for 2 years. Plus we do know it is possible only 1 infection would kill you.

That’s a straw man argument, when you take this drug you already have 100% covid19. Presumably that means you’ll have that risk, plus additional unknown risk. Perhaps the drug works like advertised, but we’ve seen better and more successful studies for things like ivermectin and anti-body treatments. Which have a known risk profile. It’s the same for the vaccine. You still have the risk of what ever the vaccine risk…

We have not seen better and more successful studies for ivermectin, we have seen a lot of studies that find it does next to nothing, and a few deeply fraudulent studies that finds that it solves world hunger.

It's a strange day when people argue against evaluating a new medicine, in favour of snake oil that doesn't work.

Given that you think that it's unclear that vaccines reduce the rate and seriousness of COVID, I am not sure that your have a good enough understanding of the ground facts to have an informed opinion on this subject.

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

#684

Post by thedorkknight »

skrbjc wrote: post #657
thedorkknight wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"at all"? What? Tons of children end up with post-acute sequelae. Where are people getting this notion that the only possible negative outcome of viral or bacterial infections is death and that that's the only stat we should look at? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927578/

Where are people getting this notion that the only possible negative outcome of unnecessary vaccination is death and that that's the only stat we should look at? fixed that for you

Didn't mention anything about vaccinations. Don't be disingenuous.

The guy above literally said "Children aren't at risk from Covid AT ALL".

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

#685

Post by renlo »

teachrdan wrote: post #590
wincy wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I saw the “masks required in this county” sign, but I really needed to pee. I knew I was going to be driving through that county for about 20 more minutes, so I checked my car for a mask. I couldn’t find one as there’s no mask mandate in my area so I’ve stopped carrying a mask around. I then held my shirt up as best I could as a “mask” and made a bee line for the bathroom. If they’d had masks at the door I’d…

> I’d be mad if I was being threatened with fines by the local government for having maskless people in my establishment too. Ha. Perhaps she was mad because she was at risk of being exposed to Covid all day long due to boneheads who were incapable of reading, or wearing a mask, and some of them turned around and gave her grief for it?

Sounds like she should be vaccinated

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

#686

Post by thehappypm »

jasonpeacock wrote: post #213
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.

When hospitalization rates are down. In many metro areas the ICU are still full of un-vaccinated COVID patients, which means people with normal emergencies can't get a bed. Thus, COVID precautions are necessary to reduce the rate of infection to levels that do not overwhelm the healthcare system. And all those areas that have "returned to normal" are sending their COVID patients to regions that are still masking beca…

ICU capacity is not that interesting to me anymore. Most hospitals don’t have row after row after row of empty ICU beds most of the time. They actually want their ICU to have just the right number of beds. 70% capacity sounds full, but it means 30% of the beds are empty. Would it ever make sense for a hospital to have 99% capacity free? Just have 99 beds empty for 1 patient? I think it’s a scare number.

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

#687

Post by adlorger »

btbuildem wrote: post #399

So what's their play here? That those people who refused vaccines will want to take this pill instead?

yes. many people are vaccine hesitant because they dislike or are afraid of shots.

also if this can help impact the rate of hospitalization and death among unvaccinated than it also alleviates the need for actual vaccinations to do the lift of ending the overall pandemic.

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

#688

Post by azinman2 »

HWR_14 wrote: post #372
pezzana wrote: post #349

> 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 PF-07321332 and ritonavir. The efficacy analysis is based on 1,219 patients. One noteworthy feature is the newness of this drug: > PF-07321332 was developed from scratch during the current pandemic. It’s a reversi…

>Less than two years from lab to clinic is highly unusual. I assume like most other COVID vaccines/treatments, the timeline is shrunk by going straight to more expensive phases of the trial instead of having preliminary ones of escalating cost and confidence. Or at least prepping for them. For instance, all the vaccines started setting up commercial production around the same time they started trials, because it's no…

And that was due to the wisdom of operation warpspeed. Trump is under credited for this (whether his idea or not, he could claim it as such). What’s shocking to me is that he hasn’t been more pro-vax given we have the vaccines we do because of his administration.

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

#689

Post by amluto »

yosito wrote: post #207
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.

> 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.

A recent HN posting would like to remind you that this logic doesn’t work:

https://rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-pssd/

There are plenty of drugs with long term effects despite not remaining in the body. Every addictive substance comes to mind, but so do chemotherapies and many other things.

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

#690

Post by apineda »

DownGoat wrote: post #353
ashleyn wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The long term risks for either is not knowable. Hospitalisation is an acute scenario that can lead to death, negating any concerns about the long-term in the first place. The short term risk of hospitalisation in the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated is well-known. Given what we know, it still makes sense to get vaccinated, and it may make sense for those at risk of hospitalisation (vaccinated or otherwise) to take…

Actually the long term risk of the covid-19 vaccines is well understood. You will not get a side effect from the vaccines in a year from now. For all of the vaccines created for any disease, the longest recorded period between taking the vaccine and side effects presenting is 6 weeks. 3.1 billion people are fully vaccinated for covid-19, many of them have been for longer than 6 weeks.

I understand what well understood means but typically that also involves long term human clinical trials, and for a good reason.
Post reply on HN