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

Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

fdanews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#211

Post by epgui »

disambiguation wrote: post #208
epgui wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal posts do keep moving, because vaccination uptake is slow, people keep arguing against public health measures, and while we waste time delaying measures or implementing half baked measures, the virus evolves.

Are you suggesting if everyone was vaccinated we wouldn't have variants at all? Or is there some other measure that can prevent variants? I'm not familiar with a public health policy that can do that.

What is it with everyone and the all-or-nothing mental models?

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#212

Post by desine »

jiggawatts wrote: post #178
desine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Good luck! I look forward to your references to peer-reviewed, reproduced, double-blind studies upending decades of well established medical science. Why is my burden of proof higher than yours? I at least linked one study in my sibling comment. I haven't seen that from anyone, studying anything, in years. Around 2018 there were actually a ton of articles and discussions right here on HN about the reproducibility pr…

There are a ton of Ivermectin studies: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... ... which if analysed properly, result in the inevitable conclustion that it works as an anti-parasitic and improves outcomes, especially in nations where parasites are common. To say anything else about it strictly puts the burden of proof on you. If you say it cures COVID, you need to demonstrate this. You also ne…

You didn't link a "peer reviewed, reproduced, double blind study". You linked a meta-analysis of other studies. One that admits near it's conclusion

"[...]the trends really are in ivermectin’s favor, but once you eliminate all the questionable studies there are too few studies left to have enough statistical power to reach significance."

Maybe it's nothing, but maybe it's something. So again, why is your burden of proof less than mine? I don't have any studies of my own, I assume you don't either, nor the resources to conduct them. All I hinted at that there was a seeming connection between an off-patent drug that had gotten an exceptional amount of hubbub. It's interesting how aggressively this argument is fought, considering there's a lot of drugs/medicines that are similar in structure and have similar but notably different effect. If this drug is just ivermectin designed more accurately for the coronavirus's protein structures, that should be lauded! It's a family of drugs with a safe track record! But instead it ignites a fiery debate filled with spite-filled comments.

Get it?

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#213

Post by disambiguation »

epgui wrote: post #211
disambiguation wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting if everyone was vaccinated we wouldn't have variants at all? Or is there some other measure that can prevent variants? I'm not familiar with a public health policy that can do that.

What is it with everyone and the all-or-nothing mental models?

That's what I thought.

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#214

Post by epgui »

disambiguation wrote: post #213
epgui wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it with everyone and the all-or-nothing mental models?

That's what I thought.

All the behaviour changes, vaccines, masks and other public health intervention have the effect of reducing Rt, geometrically, by some factor. When Rt goes below 1 for long enough, not only do variants go away, covid goes away. When you do all kinds of halfass measures and either Rt does not go below 1, or keeps going below and above 1, then you’re giving time for the virus to mutate, and this has the effect of moving people from the “immune” bucket back to the “vulnerable” bucket. When you’re beyond the very beginning of the infections S-curve, this results in an increase of Rt, which further prolongs everything. The longer this happens, the more things change (and more likely than not, for the worse), hence goalposts needing to be adjusted.

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#215

Post by anaganisk »

refurb wrote: post #200
anaganisk wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you list those experts? Because none of the actual experts I heard or read about said that. A simple google search about those points also reveal optimistic opinions by various people and not one instance where experts claim so.

Your Google skills are weak. The examples are easy to find. The CDC said that the vaccinated can only “rarely” infect others. And before you say “but Delta!”, Delta was already dominant around the time of the statement. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/cdc-vaccinated-del...

Or your understanding skills are weak. I don’t know what you are even trying to reply, I don’t see one mention that says CDC claims vaccinated people do not spread the infection. Yes they said rarely, but that does also mean, vaccinated people are likely to spread disease. Unlike your statement earlier which implies they claimed vaccinated do not spread disease.

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#216

Post by ohiovr »

Sure are a lot of missing comments here. It seems hardcore leftists love diversity in everything except diversity of opinions. Ah this place is basically group think extreme. More interesting than Reddit usually but just as hostile to debate about subjects that go against the TV gods or popular culture. Basically the internet is becoming little clicks of people that dare not even speak up for fear of losing more than something like posting privileges to a website. You think this issue is not political? It has been politics from the very first minute we saw it on TV.

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#217

Post by refurb »

acdha wrote: post #207
refurb wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven’t most of the deaths happened this year? Sure we may have started off wrong but clearly we could have course corrected? Or are Americans too stupid to understand the risks and trade offs?

The problem was that it was politicized hard early on. Now you have roughly a third of the country who’ve been told that public health measures are an unpatriotic plot, and a lot of belligerence had been encouraged. The rhetoric around this made it a very clear party loyalty test and lots of people rose to that challenge. How many people are willing to admit that they were so wrong for the better part of two years an…

I’ve spent months in 4 different countries since Covid hit and it’s politicized everywhere.

Not sure how you can force people to stay at home, kids out of school, then hand out billions in relief (or not in one country) and not have it be political?

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#218

Post by refurb »

epgui wrote: post #196
refurb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- herd immunity - driving R-value below 1 will cause Covid to extinguish itself - vaccine will prevent infection - vaccinated can get infected but don’t really infect others

Driving Rt below one will cause any species to go extinct. That’s just basic maths. If it’s not happening, then Rt is not below 1. As for the rest, you’re taking ideas that have some truth to them, and probably misinterpreting what these things actually mean and taking them unreasonably far or to the extreme: - Herd immunity is a thing, but I'm not sure how you imagine it in your head, or what you think that means. -…

Your response is some impressive hand waving.

Yes, those things are infectious disease concepts and they were touted as to how COVID will be dealt with.

Lots of talk of “once we get to 80% vaccination rate we’ll hit here immunity”. You don’t hear that any more huh?

“If we drive R below 1 we can extinguish Covid”. Now it’s “Covid is endemic, it’s not going away”.

“Once everyone is vaccinated, Covid goes away”, then “It really rare for the vaccinated to get Covid” to “holy shit, most new cases are in fully vaccinated”.

You can honestly look at that narrative and NOT completely understand why people are not listening any more?

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#219

Post by refurb »

anaganisk wrote: post #215
refurb wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your Google skills are weak. The examples are easy to find. The CDC said that the vaccinated can only “rarely” infect others. And before you say “but Delta!”, Delta was already dominant around the time of the statement. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/cdc-vaccinated-del...

Or your understanding skills are weak. I don’t know what you are even trying to reply, I don’t see one mention that says CDC claims vaccinated people do not spread the infection. Yes they said rarely, but that does also mean, vaccinated people are likely to spread disease. Unlike your statement earlier which implies they claimed vaccinated do not spread disease.

So you agree that the CDC was wrong? That was my entire point and what you challenged me on.

You seem to be trying to squirm out of your earlier statement.

Re: Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study

#220

Post by jimmyearlcarter »

joe_guy wrote: post #134
pokstad wrote: post #128

Does this mean COVID is over? I thought once the vaccines were available we could move on with life, but somehow the goal posts kept moving. Will people accept the much smaller risk of hospitalization once this pill is available?

> but somehow the goal posts kept moving. The virus changes, so the end conditions change. It's frustrating but it is what it is.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN