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

Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 569 posts

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#181

Post by crazyjncsu »

protoman3000 wrote: post #113
Guthur wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's a simple risk proposition, how much at risk do I feel my children or I are from covid. For my children it's a slam dunk; their risk from covid is statistical non existent and weigh that against vaccines that may or may not have long term negative impact on them.

From my perception it’s not that easy. Recently there have been research papers released that estimate long term effects also with children comparable to young adults. For the sake of argument, let’s assume they are right and that we know that COVID-19 has significant long-term risks for children. How do you outweigh that against the uncertainty of risk of the vaccine?

>> estimate long term effects also with children comparable to young adults

So, like nil then? I still can’t find anything beyond dramatized anecdotes to suggest any special danger beyond what is commensurate with the symptoms.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#182

Post by drran »

pizza234 wrote: post #170
postingawayonhn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to make a fair profit.

Pharmaceutical corporations are not exactly well known to seek "fair" profits. Practically speaking, I suppose a hypothetical scenario could be that the: - the companies are granted patents - the vaccine lasts for a limited amount of time - before each patent expiry they companies make minor modifications (say, storage temperature requirement decreased by half a degree) - the company make "unfair" profits by extendin…

It looks like a huge opportunity! Start your own pharmaceutical company and disrupt these bastards! You found the problem, now bring the solution.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#183

Post by refurb »

oblio wrote: post #166
erikstarck wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you then also pay those who put huge effort and expense in to research that was perhaps necessary but didn't lead anywhere?

Have these companies provide a detailed list of expenses for researching and developing this vaccine, review that, pay it as a one time cost and THEN vacate the patent. They then get to recover their R&D expenses and make a smaller but probably decent profit from its production.

Of course. And if they spent $100M on R&D and it failed? What then? Would the gov’t pay those costs? And maybe a small profit?

It’s easy to complain about Pharma profits when you ignore all the money spent that goes “poof”.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#184

Post by hkt »

erikstarck wrote: post #130
bleepblorp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Will you then also pay those who put huge effort and expense in to research that was perhaps necessary but didn't lead anywhere?

That seems fair.

Still won't be a fraction of the profit that stands to be made from these vaccines.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#185

Post by kuu »

rixrax wrote: post #90

Is there any research or early guestimates about risks (or benefits) of getting multiple different vaccines for Covid? E.g. What if one gets this, and then later moderna vaccine? Will they fight each other, or work together or is it unknown whats going to happen?

>Will they fight each other, or work together

I'm not a microbiologist, but this is not how vaccines work. The vaccines are going to put "something strange" in your body that "resembles" the virus, but it's not the virus (it's either a deactivated version of it, or some proteins which identify it...) and then is YOUR immune system the one which "attacks" this pseudo-virus. In this way, your immune system is learning how to defend to "this kind" of strange agents.

In a future if your immune system sees the virus, will defend you.

If you get the two kinds at the same time, maybe the two doses are too much for your immune system to handle it properly and the side effects may affect you (e.g. you can get fever because your immune system is under too heavy load).

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#186

Post by ageitgey »

__warlord__ wrote: post #162

In general or specific to Covid-19 vaccines, does anyone knows what happens if you get vaccinated after you got the virus?

On one hand, all of these vaccine trials excluded people who already had COVID, so we don't fully know what the effect would be in large numbers. However at least one person with COVID immunity accidentally got into the Oxford Phase 1/2 trial (according to earlier published results), so we at least know it didn't hurt them.

On the other hand, it is generally thought that vaccines can trigger immune reactions that are often much stronger and longer lasting than just being infected, so you would expect there to be a benefit to getting vaccinated even if you already had it. But only time will tell for sure. No one really knows how long immunity of either type will last - we just have to wait and find out!

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#187

Post by jsnell »

Guthur wrote: post #92
protoman3000 wrote: post #80

While we now get the results from various COVID-19 vaccines I see a societal issue brewing up. How will we deal with the perceived uncertainty of the safety of these vaccines and the surrounding (dis-)infodemic? I read recently that in some European country (was it Germany?) the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 went down from 80% to 60%. With these numbers policy makers will have a hard time convincing the b…

For me it's a simple risk proposition, how much at risk do I feel my children or I are from covid. For my children it's a slam dunk; their risk from covid is statistical non existent and weigh that against vaccines that may or may not have long term negative impact on them.

Just to be clear, you have no solid evidence on the long term negative impact on children for either the virus or the vaccine. We have no long term data on anything related to this disease.

But for the deadly virus you interpret the lack sufficient evidence on children as no risk, for the vaccine as as a sign of risk. How do you justify that inconsistency?

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#188

Post by stavros »

ulfw wrote: post #146
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they actually get to 90% or more, why would anyone bother with the more expensive and cumbersome vaccines? Except that the EU already signed a deal to buy the vaccines from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson.

Because 95% efficacy is twice as good as 90%. And some people are willing to pay the $30 it costs to be 5% likelihood to have a non-functioning vaccine vs. a 10% likelihood the vaccine you just got won't work on you.

Aren't people worried about the fact that mRNA vaccines haven't been deployed before? I don't see much apprehension about that generally, but a few months of testing of a brand new delivery technique don't sound that extensive to me.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#189

Post by sgt101 »

An important fact that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that 3m doses have been manufactured already and are available in the UK supply chain today. "All" that's required is the approval from the regulator - but I guess that is still a little way off. 3m would do a lot of good though - frontline staff, the most vulnerable, hotspots....

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#190

Post by HPsquared »

madaxe_again wrote: post #158
postingawayonhn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to make a fair profit.

I don’t see why it’s any different to war profiteering. Legal, yes - moral, debatable.

Except for how, you know, weapons and medicines have slightly different effects when used.
Post reply on HN