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

Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 344 posts

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#101

Post by hyko »

akie wrote: post #46
hyko wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, $20 a shot vs $3 a shot buys a lot of influence. Still, it’s good that someone stepped up the the plate, otherwise most people on earth would remain unvaccinated.

What would also help is if the UK and the US would export vaccine to other countries, like the rest of the world does. Sharing is caring? EDIT: https://www.statista.com/chart/24555/vaccine-doses-produced-...

Well...not really. The UK manufacturing capacity is tiny from a global perspective. The EU tried to scapegoat the UK for their failure to run an efficient procurement, but that was just irrational politicking. The U.S. obviously has more manufacturing capacity, but like the UK it basically has no chance of dealing with the pandemic without mass vaccination, so exports are a political non starter.

What was really required was a globally coordinated response to the design, test, manufacture, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, through the WHO/CEPI with the backing of the security council members. Unfortunately with the major countries locked in various levels of sub-explosive warfare with each other (and our international institutions gravely weakened*) we've ended up with a scramble powered by commerce and nationalism.

Edit: *through malice and incompetence

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#102

Post by hef19898 »

FredPret wrote: post #97
hef19898 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sounds about right. Having elections only seems to make these things worse.

I’ll tell you one thing that’s even worse than elections - no elections

Absolutely! But having elections in 2021 makes every Covid-related decision by definition political. And that doesn't help.

I should have made clear that the problem with elections is the timing, not elections in general. Governments should be focused on getting the population vaccinated as fast as possible now, and not worry about their / (re-)election chances.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#104

Post by marvin »

gms7777 wrote: post #25
alkonaut wrote: post #3

Not giving it to 65+ people seems overly cautious. There are zero cases in that group and even just a small delay will mean many dead. This is trading a potential unlikely side effect for a large number of severe Covid cases in high risk groups. Edit: yes I'm aware they have only a dozen or so dead per week but that also translates to hundreds of severe cases, missed elective surgeries, etc. For what would most likel…

It's a real world example of a trolley problem. They're choosing to let a large group risk severe disease or death through inaction, rather than pulling the lever and have a small group be at risk due to their actions.

This would be correct if Covid was very widespread in Denmark, most of the at-risk >65 population wasn't vaccinated already and there weren't alternatives available very shortly. But none of these are true, so the overall ethical decision becomes more complicated than that.

It's fallacious to describe this as an instance of the trolley problem, as there's also the public's trust in vaccines to consider. You'll see that the rest of Europe have arrived at a different conclusion, largely due to the fact that Covid is much more widespread there.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#105

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

schattschneider wrote: post #73
londons_explore wrote: post #53

This decision seems illogical to many commenters here, but I assume the decision was made by professionals with all the data in front of them. Which then raises the question, why did these professionals make a decision so different than the "obvious" opinion here?

People on this platform, I assume, are familiar with the scientific consensus on these topics and generally side with the science. But one has to understand, that these decisions are not made directly by scientists but by politicians who have scientific advisors. And as politicians, they will factor in a lot more than just the hard science on a topic, which can result in seemingly unscientific decisions that go again…

> as politicians, they will factor in a lot more than just the hard science on a topic

Are we really going to allow ourselves to slide into such naivete, especially after we have suffered through a year-long global orgy of corruption and violence at the hands of these same politicians?

I wonder what science the Biden administration used to determine it really should sell all those weapons to the UAE. [0]

What was the science behind the West's decision - also led by Biden - to continue bombing civilian infrastructure in Yemen? [1]

Politicians use science as a rallying cry, not as an actual philosophical fundamental. We would be a lot better off if they even tried to practice people-ruling while utilizing the "hard science," but we must all come to the realization that they are simply science-adjacent. None of the ghouls in elected office - in any country on the planet - have any idea how to incorporate "science," into the act of ruling over others. But perhaps the more important question is: why should we even value such an incorporation, if it were valid?

Scientists study the natural world, observe it, and document it for others to observe on their own. Politicians - if we were to be very charitable - move other peoples' money around & redistribute it. There is only a small overlap in these concentric circles and it's probably too large as it is. The mandate of the politician is largely illogical, and for this reason trying to conflate it with science is not just sophomoric and ridiculous - it's incredibly dangerous.

[0] https://news.antiwar.com/2021/04/13/biden-to-proceed-with-tr...

[1] https://yemendataproject.org/

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#106

Post by devit »

londons_explore wrote: post #53

This decision seems illogical to many commenters here, but I assume the decision was made by professionals with all the data in front of them. Which then raises the question, why did these professionals make a decision so different than the "obvious" opinion here?

Not sure it's that illogical.

mRNA vaccines are apparently better and don't seem to have serious side effects, so only using those is correct if it doesn't delay immunity too long.

According to the article, this might cause a 4 weeks delay: currently Denmark has around 2 deaths per day, thus possibly causing 60 additional deaths, which would match a vaccine death rate of 1/100000.

Denmark has a 6 million population, and it seems AstraZeneca kills around 1/1000000 so it seems COVID is only 10x more lethal than the vaccine in the general population.

However death rates for COVID are much higher in the elderly while vaccine clot rates are much higher in young people, so the AstraZeneca vaccine might be more lethal in present day Denmark for young people.

Even among elderly people they can eliminate their COVID risk by isolating but they would be forced to take the vaccine risk if the government only offers the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Finally any vaccine deaths can be more easily attributed to the person who made the decision to continue using the vaccine thon COVID deaths.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#107

Post by hef19898 »

gmueckl wrote: post #54
hef19898 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slowely I'm getting the impression that a lot of decisions around AZ are politically driven. In Germany, the new recommendation is now to use Biontech for the second shot after AZ. In that recommendation, it is also stated that there are no studies nor data supporting that. Quite funny, because there is, to my understanding, a study taking place in the Uk for that. It is expected to be done by end of April. Someone h…

I guess that a decision needed to be made in a timely manner to provide guidelines for those who get their second dose before end of April?

Which would mean mixing vaccines without any trials done on the effects of this. As compared to using a second AZ shot, which has been analyzed and approved. Seems risky to my untrained eye.

And it wouldn't be hte first AZ related recommendation that changes every other week. We had so far:

- not for people over 65 because of underrepresentation in the trials

- not for people under 60 because of blood clots before any studies were finished

- Nobody wants AZ, so we will give it to everyone who is willing to take it

I don't see a strigent strategy here.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#108

Post by ceejayoz »

zpeti wrote: post #77
eloff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's exactly it. There is a tradeoff to be made here with likely deaths on both sides, and the government is choosing much higher numbers of deaths because it looks better for them politically. That's immoral and cowardly. I don't see any way to justify the decision they've made logically.

This pandemic is basically this entire story. COVID deaths are much more visible than the missed cancers, the depression and drug abuse caused by lockdowns, so basically it’s an easy choice for governments, lockdowns are better politically.

Confidently stated, but the impact of lockdowns is likely more complex in reality. It may require years of research to tease out all the components; lockdown vs general pandemic stress, differences in implementation, etc. For example:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...

> Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs based on the observed versus expected numbers of suicides showed no evidence of a significant increase in risk of suicide since the pandemic began in any country or area. There was statistical evidence of a decrease in suicide compared with the expected number in 12 countries or areas.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#109

Post by marvin »

yummybear wrote: post #103

1 of 40.000 apparently risk "serious side effects". This is a lot higher than I thought.

Scandinavia has arrived at numbers that are many times higher than the international consensus, due to local observations.

It seems very unlikely to be a statistical anomaly, although it isn't known yet whether it's due to incomplete observations from abroad or due to local environmental or genetic factors. It would obviously be poor science to ignore the observations; they are well documented at this point.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#110

Post by varispeed »

joakleaf wrote: post #95
mellosouls wrote: post #8

This seems like another overreaction that will be interpreted - rightly or wrongly - in the UK in political (Brexit) terms rather than medical or scientific (although they are clearly an important consideration). It's difficult to see how Denmark isn't failing its population with this decision.

It is about picking a safer and possibly better alternative costing a few weeks delay. In Denmark, at least among the people I talk to, there isn't much confidence in AZ. The feeling is that Moderna or Pfizer are safer with higher protection (also against mutations). So the common feeling here is really that the government would fail the population by using AZ instead of the (possibly better) alternatives.

Isn't this rather because AstraZeneca is sold at cost whereas other jabs are for profit? Then Google history of corruption of companies like Pfizer. I sound cynical, but I don't believe one bit that politicians are doing something out of their good will.
Post reply on HN