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%

#811

Post by HWR_14 » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:05 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #679

HWR_14 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

This has interesting implications when we consider how much money drug companies “should” be paid for inventing important new life-saving medicines. I frequently hear/read complaints of "that's outrageous [that this medicine costs $X]!" Well, maybe it is; maybe it isn't, but if you make sure it costs $X/100, I can be pretty sure you'll get less drug R&D.

R&D is actually usually done outside of the major drug companies and is funded by the government. So I doubt it really will effect it. And most price hikes lately have been in pre-existing drugs.

It's interesting to note that the Pfizer, AstroZeneca and J&J vaccines were all invented by 3rd parties.

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

#812

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:07 PM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #790

Qub3d wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operation Warp Speed is, to me, an indication of the power of government "intertia". Trump changed a lot of things, and while an uncomfortable amount of the U.S. government seems to run on "tradition" that isn't actually law, after 4 years of unchecked assault it was only at the very end that it really got crazy. Warp speed is the work of career guys. Not even Fauchi -- he was important, but these ideas are put toget…

> Operation Warp Speed is, to me, an indication of the power of government "intertia". We call this the Deep State

> We call this the Deep State

If by “we” you mean fans of the arbitrary, irresponsible, corrupt patronage-based governance of the spoils system who use the term to denigrate the idea of a professional civil service with loyalty that extends beyond the person of the current chief executive on whom their tenure depends, then, sure, “we” do.

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

#813

Post by oblio » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

vidoc wrote: post #574

chadash wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He he, does anyone remember the Software Publishers Association?

They, together with Microsoft, tried to calculate how much money Microsoft was losing in developing countries. So they went something like: 1 billion PCs x 1 copy of Windows 98 or whatever was popular at the time x $100 per copy, so Microsoft is losing $100 billion.

They just ignored a few key facts. Such as, for example, the fact that many of those 1 billion PC users in developing countries were making $100 per year. So if someone held a gun to their head they still wouldn't have been able to pay the license cost. They would have just used something else, maybe Linux.

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

#814

Post by thehappypm » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:10 PM UTC

pjkundert wrote: post #799

kibwen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to be clear, this drug is not related to ivermectin: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-067310377629

Except that they are both potent protease inhibitors. Other than that, you mean?

Why would a parasite drug have protease inhibition properties? Parasites don’t have protease enzymes

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

#815

Post by pjkundert » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:11 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #118

loceng wrote: post #78

Sounds like same/similar rate as Ivermectin - if proper protocol followed.

Stop spreading disinformation. This has gone through studies showing significant positive benefits. Ivermectin has small studies with dubious methodology showing possible effects and larger studies with better methodology showing no benefit, along with substantial side-effects. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&ur...

You are misinformed:

c19early.com c19ivermectin.com

128 studies, 83 peer-reviewed.

The money quote, from ivmmeta.com:

- There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion.

So, ... stop spreading misinformation?

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

#816

Post by oblio » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:11 PM UTC

claytongulick wrote: post #781

orra wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so certain. People who for whatever irrational reason don't want an mRNA vaccine can take a viral vector vaccine. Yet they don't.

I suppose some people would lump me in with "anti-vaxxer" because I don't want to get the Covid vaccine. I'm not anti-vax, btw. I have a medical condition that requires me to receive regular vaccination against several diseases, and I'm strict about doing that on time. I've made a calculated decision in the case of this specific vaccine based on that fact that I've now had Covid twice (first time was a bit nasty, sec…

The thing is, you're not representative of unvaccinated folks. You're an extreme outlier. Most of them haven't done this research.

In my opinion, if you're nice and wear a mask in crowded conditions, don't go around hanging especially indoors in big groups, your position is kind of ok.

Though I'd still look at the numbers to check if vaccines reduce infection rates and rate of spread. Because if that's true, it might be worth getting vaccinated to protect others a bit more.

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

#817

Post by thehappypm » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:13 PM UTC

pjkundert wrote: post #815

acdha wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop spreading disinformation. This has gone through studies showing significant positive benefits. Ivermectin has small studies with dubious methodology showing possible effects and larger studies with better methodology showing no benefit, along with substantial side-effects. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&ur...

You are misinformed: c19early.com c19ivermectin.com 128 studies, 83 peer-reviewed. The money quote, from ivmmeta.com: - There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion. So, ... stop spreading misinformation?

Can you find a neutral source? I’m really interested in ivermectin but nobody posts anything from neutral web sites.

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

#818

Post by oblio » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

epakai wrote: post #772

dboreham wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because _absolutely_ _anything_ is less dangerous than mRNA.

mRNA has potential to be dangerous. There is nothing inherently dangerous in what our bodies already use as building instructions, nor is there evidence to suggest current mRNA vaccines cause any of these theoretical issues.

Yeah, plus on top of that, anything has the potential to be dangerous. Take, for example, water. Everybody knows about its positive sides, and about most of the negative ones.

But 99% of people don't know that water can kill you. I'm not talking about drowning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

If the most benign substance on the surface on the planet can kill you, anything can.

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

#819

Post by thehappypm » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #765

thehappypm wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt we’ll see molnupiravir getting approved in this context now. I think the mechanism just has too much risk.

Already approved in the UK: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59163899

The UK is very different from the US. They seem hell-bent on approving everything. Even historically (thalidomide).

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

#820

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Nov 05, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #798

ceejayoz wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've done that for decades in this country. > All 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) mandate diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, measles, rubella and chickenpox. In addition, every state except Iowa mandates immunization against mumps. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/08/states-have...

The difference is that kids still get to go to school if the parents refuse these vaccines. It has never been publicized, but it's always ultimately been up to the parents.

Not here in NY, it’s not.