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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by Alex3917 »

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.

> I can be pretty sure you'll get less drug R&D.

You'd get more R&D. There were way more new drugs released before Bayh-Dole.

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

#902

Post by s1artibartfast »

jiggawatts wrote: post #892
refurb wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible take. Your first source vaguely tries to estimate promotional spending (not advertising as you deceitfully claim). Promotional spend has a positive ROI (or you wouldn’t do it). So spending $1B in promotion gets your $1B+ in sales (it’s self funding). Plus stock buybacks and dividends are being criticized? Returning money to investors is “bad”? Who do you think provides capital for drug development? The Grena…

$1B in R&D can often result in $100B in sales, so it is "even more" self-funding. “Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I’ll tell you what they are.” – James W. Frick

Are you claiming that Pharma companies don't want to make money and are therefore not investing more in R&D?

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

#903

Post by catlikesshrimp »

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…

This is something I haven't encountered before in biochemistry

"reversible covalent"

A chemical covalent bond. Maybe it means something else in this article?

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

#904

Post by Lhiw »

greeneggs wrote: post #735
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharma companies in the US spend about twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D [1]. Recent data compiled by the House Oversight Committee shows the biggest pharma companies spent $56 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than they did on R&D over the past five years [2]. Very little of the ridiculous prices that US citizens pay for medicine (directly or via insurance) actually goes towards R&D. [1] http…

Your first link is from 2008, and analyzes data from 2004. I don't see how this proves anything, or even suggests much, about the industry today. Your second link shows that the pharma companies spend almost as much on R&D as on stock dividends and buybacks. Is there any other industry that spends as much on R&D? Apple, for instance, seems to be spending ~6x as much on stock buybacks and dividends as on R&D (approxim…

We're not talking about government action forcing apple to sell iPads for near cost.

We're talking about whether using the governments scale to negotiate better pricing is going to put them out of business or in this arguments case whether it will reduce their spending on r&d.

The idea that it would is silly at best given how much they spend on marketing compared to r&d.

It also ignores how much the government gives them to fund new research with nothing in return, hello Moderna you Brandon loving fucks.

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

#905

Post by catlikesshrimp »

jiggawatts wrote: post #892
refurb wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible take. Your first source vaguely tries to estimate promotional spending (not advertising as you deceitfully claim). Promotional spend has a positive ROI (or you wouldn’t do it). So spending $1B in promotion gets your $1B+ in sales (it’s self funding). Plus stock buybacks and dividends are being criticized? Returning money to investors is “bad”? Who do you think provides capital for drug development? The Grena…

$1B in R&D can often result in $100B in sales, so it is "even more" self-funding. “Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I’ll tell you what they are.” – James W. Frick

Price is not defined by costs. You adjust prices for maximum profit, as in the k of (h,k) of a quadratic equation.

If you can produce a drug for 1$ a dose and you can sell it for 100$ at most without losing customers, you do that.

If your product costs are too high, you don't advertise. You sell the drug to the government as an "orphan drug".

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

#906

Post by catlikesshrimp »

anamax wrote: post #846
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharma companies in the US spend about twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D [1]. Recent data compiled by the House Oversight Committee shows the biggest pharma companies spent $56 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than they did on R&D over the past five years [2]. Very little of the ridiculous prices that US citizens pay for medicine (directly or via insurance) actually goes towards R&D. [1] http…

Advertising includes drug samples given to doctors, which many/most of them give to patients who can't afford said drugs. How many of them are you willing to cut off?

BS, doctors give the samples to friends and family, and some to patients. Doctors can't know a patient is poor. In private practice, the doctor assumes the patient isn't poor.

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

#907

Post by gonational »

jdlyga wrote: post #791

This is excellent news. Vaccines and an easy to get prescription treatment like tamiflu are how this stops being a pandemic.

Yeah, this means all the people who waited to see how deadly this brand new technology and "vaccine" was will now know that it was never necessary. Not to mention that the "vaccine" does not prevent the spread, only purportedly reduces the symptoms.

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

#908

Post by gonational »

ganzuul wrote: post #858
phh wrote: post #13

> Pfizer used data on patients who were treated within three days of symptom onset as the headline finding in its press release > There were six hospitalizations and no deaths among the 607 patients who received Paxlovid within five days of symptom onset, compared to 41 hospitalizations and 10 deaths in the placebo cohort. > Like Merck, Pfizer excluded people vaccinated against COVID-19 from its late-phase study. No…

10 deaths with placebo... Medical ethics are confusing. Maybe this field needs more oversight. Especially on the corporate level.

It's almost as if we could just let people make and live by their own medical decisions. We've got one case in recent history of an argument about "you're making decisions that affect me", and it turns out that this entire argument is bunk because the "vaccines" do not prevent the spread. So it's purely a personal decision about your own health.

And pertaining to clinical trials, if I want to sign up for a clinical trial for a what might be a placebo for a great white shark bite in the midriff, that's my own choice. If I die because of this choice, that's my fault.

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

#909

Post by ygjb »

anamax wrote: post #846
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharma companies in the US spend about twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D [1]. Recent data compiled by the House Oversight Committee shows the biggest pharma companies spent $56 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than they did on R&D over the past five years [2]. Very little of the ridiculous prices that US citizens pay for medicine (directly or via insurance) actually goes towards R&D. [1] http…

Advertising includes drug samples given to doctors, which many/most of them give to patients who can't afford said drugs. How many of them are you willing to cut off?

As an alternative, you could have a single payer, public health care option that would be significantly cheaper than the current shit show that the US system has (modulo the small percentage of Americans who have had a genuinely positive experience with the syst as opposed to the Kafkaesque nightmares that are the more common take.)

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

#910

Post by School-Cotton »

gonational wrote: post #907
jdlyga wrote: post #791

This is excellent news. Vaccines and an easy to get prescription treatment like tamiflu are how this stops being a pandemic.

Yeah, this means all the people who waited to see how deadly this brand new technology and "vaccine" was will now know that it was never necessary. Not to mention that the "vaccine" does not prevent the spread, only purportedly reduces the symptoms.

The vaccine neither outright prevents spread nor severe symptoms, but it dramatically reduces the probability of both.
Post reply on HN