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

Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

heraldscotland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 361 posts

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#101

Post by jedberg »

nickpp wrote: post #91
jedberg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US's ban of AZ is most glaring People said the same thing about the US's ban on thalidomide until it turned out they were right. In this case I'm ok with a little conservatism on the part of the FDA. The US is already in 4th place on vaccinations per capita, just barely behind the UK, without either of those policies. Copying from my comment below, a bunch of other examples of times when the FDA was right and E…

It's been over 50 years since the thalidomide tragedy. Do you still let plane crashes of last century direct your choice of transportation?

The point is the USA was right when everyone else was wrong and didn't bow to public pressure, and so I trust them a bit more when they are conservative with approvals.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#102

Post by aqme28 »

loveistheanswer wrote: post #31

Until we have challenge trials, how do we know whether or not other variables, such as natural herd immunity and seasonality are not also significant contributing factors to the 'substantial reduction'?

You don't need a challenge trial if you have large enough control and experimental groups.

A challenge trial just reduces the time and number of people it takes--not everything needs a challenge trial.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#103

Post by nickpp »

jedberg wrote: post #101
nickpp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been over 50 years since the thalidomide tragedy. Do you still let plane crashes of last century direct your choice of transportation?

The point is the USA was right when everyone else was wrong and didn't bow to public pressure, and so I trust them a bit more when they are conservative with approvals.

Yes it was right in that case, but blindly letting a single tragedy direct policy without taking into consideration current factors is extremely dangerous.

People are dying of COVID right now. If fear of another thalidomide incident delays a saving vaccine we may end up losing more lives than potentially saving.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#104

Post by drummer »

> Roll-out of the first vaccine dose now needs to be accelerated globally to help overcome this terrible disease.

In a publication in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents titled “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data” (March 19th 2020), the researchers indicate that “there does not seem to be a significant difference between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries and that of common coronaviruses”. Furthermore, according to their analysis, “SARS-CoV-2 infection cannot be described as being statistically more severe than infection with other coronaviruses in common circulation. […] Finally, in OECD countries, SARS-CoV-2 does not seem to be deadlier than other circulating viruses.”

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#107

Post by xur17 »

ageitgey wrote: post #18
kop316 wrote: post #11

"By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were shown to reduce the risk of hospitalisation from Covid-19 by up to 85 per cent and 94 per cent, respectively. Among those aged 80 years and over - one of the highest risk groups - vaccination was associated with an 81 per cent reduction in hospitalisation risk in the fourth week, when the results for both vaccines we…

I sorry to hear about your brother's Mother-in-Law. I just wanted to concur for anyone who is not yet aware: all the data so far (from multiple studies) shows that there is zero or near zero protection for the first two weeks after the first dose. It's not until the third/fourth weeks after the dose that you start to see substantial protection, with higher protection the fourth week.

Do you remember what studies this data was from? I'd be curious to look at it.

The fda filing [0] for Moderna seemed to indicate a decent uptick in protection > 14 days after dose 1 (which seems to mirror the studies you are referencing). I see a "Vaccine Efficacy" of 92.1% for > 14 days after dose 1, which seems to be fairly close to the ~95% efficacy I've seen described for 14 days after dose 2.

[0] https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download (page 28)

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#108

Post by aclimatt »

Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures?

The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022.

Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-high risk of hospitalization? (Determination of risk however you'd like to do it.)

Put another way, you wouldn't shut the world down if a bunch of people got sick for a few days. You may, and indeed we have, shut it down if a large part of the population were at risk of hospitalization or death. In many developed countries, that population is looking at full inoculation (for those who want it) sometime this spring.

Should that not be the "end" of it?

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#109

Post by jedberg »

nickpp wrote: post #103
jedberg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is the USA was right when everyone else was wrong and didn't bow to public pressure, and so I trust them a bit more when they are conservative with approvals.

Yes it was right in that case , but blindly letting a single tragedy direct policy without taking into consideration current factors is extremely dangerous. People are dying of COVID right now. If fear of another thalidomide incident delays a saving vaccine we may end up losing more lives than potentially saving.

It's not blindly letting a single tragedy set policy. It's one example of many that the FDA has used to build up trust in their process over the last eight decades.

And it's not like the AZ vax is the only option out there. The lives will still be saved with the other vaccines.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#110

Post by jhayward »

xur17 wrote: post #107
ageitgey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sorry to hear about your brother's Mother-in-Law. I just wanted to concur for anyone who is not yet aware: all the data so far (from multiple studies) shows that there is zero or near zero protection for the first two weeks after the first dose. It's not until the third/fourth weeks after the dose that you start to see substantial protection, with higher protection the fourth week.

Do you remember what studies this data was from? I'd be curious to look at it. The fda filing [0] for Moderna seemed to indicate a decent uptick in protection > 14 days after dose 1 (which seems to mirror the studies you are referencing). I see a "Vaccine Efficacy" of 92.1% for > 14 days after dose 1, which seems to be fairly close to the ~95% efficacy I've seen described for 14 days after dose 2. [0] https://www.fda…

We should note that the >14-day efficacy is presumed to decay fairly rapidly, thus the need for the 2nd dose to cement the response long-term, as well as eke out the last few percent of efficacy.
Post reply on HN