Looking at this thread as an interesting datapoint. Typically HN is thoughtful, well reasoned, and well informed. This thread is not holding that same level.
Wonder what this says about the level of concern over this bug.
Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
181–190 of 262 posts
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#182For those suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine can somehow be fast tracked, consider what happens if something goes wrong during deployment to the population. The US has an active, very vocal anti-vax community. They've been growing and gaining ground for decades. The first sign of trouble of any kind with a new COVID-19 vaccine would result in a backlash of biblical proportions. It could be so strong as to derail any…
> first sign of trouble of any kind with a new COVID-19 vaccine Like what? Vaccines do not cause autism.
Like serious side effects? If you want to vaccinate virtually the whole world and your vaccines turns out to have serious side effects in 1% of people because you rushed its development and didn't go through the regular extended long term tests it wouldn't be that good
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to 2% chance of death from the virus? I'll take a 2% chance of blindness over 2% chance of death for example. Of course we don't know what the odds are for the negative side effects.
like, for example, if the vaccine is made from chicken eggs and a non-sterile batch gets through because we scaled up the pipelines faster than what was safe... BTW, your 2% chance of death is assuming you catch the bug (and that the 2% figure is accurate). vs a much higher chance that you take the vaccine. Do you prefer a 0.02 * 0.8 == 0.16 chance of blindness over a 0.02 * 0.05 == 0.001 chance of death?
Nobody knows what the real numbers are, so it is pointless to ask that question.
2% might be the overall death rate if this thing keeps coming back until eventually everybody has been infected. Or maybe it mutates to be less deadly. Maybe the hypothetical vaccine is only a .2% chance of deafness not blindness - or a 10% chance of your little toe falling off...
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also still used successfully as a medicine for a number of uses.
I sure they take more precautions like make sure women who take the medications are not pregnant.
Yes, exactly. Seems better than a blanket ban. As pointed out elsewhere, the FDA is basically trying to keep dramatic risks/outcomes low, to maintain confidence in approved drugs, but tends to have a high false negative rate. What's interesting is that Vioxx was approved, but later appeared to have huge negative impact when it was given to large numbers of people (and apparently, it was also evident in the raw clinical trials data which was submitted to FDA).
It's an entirely non-trivial, multi-dimensional, systemic problem.
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the "rightfully so!" There is a real cost to not approving good drugs in order to avoid approving bad ones.
> There is a real cost to not approving good drugs in order to avoid approving bad ones. Do you have any evidence for this? Seems to me like a classic shibboleth of the pharma guild.
This seems like a difficult thing to test maybe even unethical. In order to detect the rate of false negatives you would have to re-test drugs that were shut down for being too risky.
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#186Looking at this thread as an interesting datapoint. Typically HN is thoughtful, well reasoned, and well informed. This thread is not holding that same level. Wonder what this says about the level of concern over this bug.
This has been true of every HN thread in the past week or two relating to COVID-19. The typical objectivity you see among the usual audience has disappeared.
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but the death rate of COVID-19 may not be high enough to justify a huge increase in risk tolerance.
Dearh rate for sever cases is huge. We'll get the first test results at end of march/start of april. If I have 30% chance of dying I take anything that lowers the chance significantly.
That's true. A higher risk vaccine may be worth it for folks at high risk or with high exposure.
Risk tolerance should be seen as a sliding scale, not as a binary.
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you possibly know that?
It's about psychology, not numbers. the parent post referenced Thalidomide. a disaster like would seriously shake public confidence in medicine, across the board
The public seems able to understand that there is a cost/benefit tradeoff in driving cars. They could probably understand that idea in the case of drug approval also.
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#189I see a lot of panicky comments, both in real life and in this very thread. I know COVID19 is different from a regular flu, but is it more serious? "Regular" flu is very contagious and kills lots of people every year. It's ok to study coronavirus and to try to find ways to effectively manage it, combat it or prevent the disease -- but why are we panicking? Nobody panics about the flu and it's proven to be fatal for a…
Something to consider: even if it was "just like a flu" (which it isn't, enough commenters already pointed out the differences, but let's just for the sake of my argument assume that it was), it is a matter of fact that this would then be a "second flu" going around at a time at which doctors and hospitals are already well-loaded with caring for patients that have more serious trouble with the "real flu" that happens…
Thanks. The overloading of the healthcare system, which you and others mentioned, is something I had not considered. It makes sense that two flu-like[1] virulent diseases at the same time can overload it and that it would be a very serious matter. I still think panicking is not the answer, but I'm now convinced it's a more serious matter than I first thought.
[1] for the sake of argument, even if coronavirus is not actually similar to any flu strand. I'm not a specialist and I cannot tell the actual differences.
Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
To what extent? Please expand because this depends on how people's lives depends on the economy. You can take good measures that slows down the economy without endangering people's lives. Of course you can also consider social unrest to be a risk but that's another matter.
If people's lives don't depend on the economy, why don't we all stop working?
Wall Street and stock prices are detached from day to day life for most people.