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

161–170 of 344 posts

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#161

Post by alkonaut »

marvin wrote: post #99
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…

The >65 population in Scandinavia is largely vaccinated already, and incidence of new cases is low. So it's a decision that might be questioned, but which would have small real-world consequences even if it turned out to be incorrect in isolation. That part of the decision might just be the combination of uncertainty combined with the public's skepticism towards this particular vaccine. Giving an impression of listen…

> The >65 population in Scandinavia is largely vaccinated already, and incidence of new cases is low.

80+ population is largely vaccinated. 70+ isn't, and 60+ is barely begun, at least in Sweden.

But most deaths are in 80+, so current situation is that hospital admissions are trending up (because adults are largely unvaccinated), ICU is trending up (because 50+ are unvaccinated) but deaths are trending down (because 80+ are vaccinated).

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#162

Post by inglor_cz »

usrusr wrote: post #148
zpeti wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But people will also miss cancer screenings, get depressed and so on when they stay at home because of an unmitigated pandemic running wild. It wouldn't be 2019 again without government intervention. (PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down?)

> (PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down?)

I was literally looking forward to an expensive and unpleasant dentist appointment (dental implant). At least, some change in the routine.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#163

Post by mnw21cam »

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-...

The UK mostly doesn't export its vaccines, because it makes much more sense for them to just set up other factories manufacturing them in other countries. Which is what AZ has done.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#164

Post by Tenoke »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #155
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in the article states that double masking is not good. It merely states that the study doesn't give any reliable conclusions.

Are you saying it's obviously good, but you can't tell it helps?

As far as I can tell nobody but you is using the phrase 'obviously good' for that particular claim and is simply the case of a specific study being touted and then turning out it has flaws which does happen all the time and isn't what we were talking about.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#165

Post by ethanbond »

hef19898 wrote: post #47
ethanbond wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think incompetent is harsh, but they had a bad data submission and also a dosing error. Neither is a good look. Neither ended up being a big problem but they could’ve been.

Yeah, that was an issue. I cannot tell how much of an issue, because I have zero experience with medical trials. As do most people, I assume, getting upset about that. Regardless, AZ got approval in the UK and from EMA in the EU. And these entities job is clinical trial assessment. Unless I am going to refuse any and all drugs and medical treatment, I will have to trust e.g. EMA that the stuff I take when being sick…

A good heuristic for how big/rare of a problem would be to try to find another instance of NIAID publicly scolding a company seeking approval. Doesn't happen.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#166

Post by febeling »

de_keyboard wrote: post #136
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.

I think there were broadly 3 strategies: 1. Do very little intervention, but perhaps isolate the vulnerable. This was the "Sweden strategy". 2. Do big interventions if cases rise, but only so far as is required to prevent hospitals being over-whelmed. This was the strategy in most of Europe, and in particular the UK. 3. Do big interventions with the intention of reaching "covid zero", including restrictions on intern…

So why not choose (1)?

This seems to have been the strategy in the past with similar risks. And it avoids the costs of freedom and live at the same time. What am I missing?

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#167

Post by GoblinSlayer »

ceejayoz wrote: post #108
zpeti wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 signifi…

Less human contact, less stress, less suicide.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#168

Post by makomk »

okintheory wrote: post #16

The graphic in this Guardian article [1] suggests that for age 40+ the number of covid-related ICU admissions prevented vs. no. blood clots has a factor 10 gap. Of course, clots might be more severe than ICU admission. But still, it looks to me like stopping for over 40 is a huge mistake. Very disappointing. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/07/under-30s-in...

Yeah, and that's based on the relatively low levels of Covid in the UK recently too... I'm not sure there's anywhere in Europe whose Covid outbreak is currently as under control as the UK's.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#169

Post by caddemon »

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…

The scientific consensus on issues like this as they emerge evolves rapidly though. And I think "degree of uncertainty" is something that is lost on educated lay people when they try to keep up to date with the science. Just look at the messaging surrounding masks in March 2020.

Public health issues are further complicated by what messages are thought to result in the best population behavior. There are articles in medical journals discussing the issue of people refusing to take the less strong vaccine, it is an entire topic of research in itself how to communicate with the public. It is not out of the question to strategically spread somewhat false messaging, like "all the vaccines are the same!" when obviously they are not.

Finally, this kind of thing is always going to involve value judgements that don't have an objective answer. How different is death of a 20 year old vs death of an 80 year old? How do you compare side effects like partial paralysis vs permanent lung damage? They are apples to oranges problems. But in cases where we have to act cohesively as a population, a judgement has to be made by someone. Plus in general I think medicine tends to not trust people to make their own well thought out decisions, for better or worse.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#170

Post by sofixa »

de_keyboard wrote: post #136
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.

I think there were broadly 3 strategies: 1. Do very little intervention, but perhaps isolate the vulnerable. This was the "Sweden strategy". 2. Do big interventions if cases rise, but only so far as is required to prevent hospitals being over-whelmed. This was the strategy in most of Europe, and in particular the UK. 3. Do big interventions with the intention of reaching "covid zero", including restrictions on intern…

Living in 2 i'm not sure 3 would have worked where i am ( France) to get to zero, especially considering Schengen and the fact that even if by some magic you get to zero cases, it can easily spillover by even a few people from neighboring countries or tourists. And i sincerely doubt it could have gotten to zero cases - every lockdown since the first one has been ignored by a non-negligeable amount of the population.
Post reply on HN