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

Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

fiercebiotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#201

Post by cossatot »

stronglikedan wrote: post #125
RicoElectrico wrote: post #50

We had reports of people who wanted to take weird-ass drugs-of-the-day just to refuse getting vaccinated. And screaming "conspiracy" when their efficacy was not confirmed to be as high as they expected. Good that we have something that actually works, bad that some assholes will use it as an excuse not to get vaxxed, completely missing the point (among others, trying to prevent something worse than Delta).

> some assholes will use it as an excuse not to get vaxxed Well, they've succeeded in holding out long enough, now that there's no longer a good reason to get vaxxed. Because, as most people are starting to realize, the pandemic is over (at least in the US).

A simple look at the time series shows that this is not the case in many places (e.g., Oregon, where I live): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/oregon-covid-cas...

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#202

Post by spazrunaway »

nsxwolf wrote: post #172
helge9210 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does exist. Probably has the same symptoms as any other virus pneumonia.

Long-everything exists, we just don't talk about it. I've had multiple colds that lasted 2-3 months, and one that didn't completely resolve for almost 6 months.

I'm guessing they didn't damage your organs, though.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#203

Post by brokensegue »

scohesc wrote: post #126
n8cpdx wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? Vaccine flows like water these days, and at least in the rich world, nearly everyone who needs this chose to be in that position. Making that choice should be incredibly costly.

I think it does matter. If it's expensive - we'll have government printing more money to afford the pill, like they've been doing for the vaccine, and the general populace for the past 2 years. But the vaccine is free! Yep... sure.

Do you think there's a significant increase in government spending for paying for these pills? It's trivial compared to things like enhanced welfare benefits or military spending

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#204

Post by makomk »

adrianN wrote: post #152
dontcare007 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's just it, there's less than a 2% chance of dying even if you get COVID.

There is a much higher chance of dying when you're in the ICU with Covid and a doctor thinks it's appropriate to prescribe this new medication.

The trouble is that the new medications probably don't work by the time you're in the ICU with Covid. I'm not sure it was tested with this one specifically, but at least one of the recently-approved medications was previously trialled on ICU patients and showed no benefit - they had to do another study giving it to people who hadn't been hospitalized yet to get any useful reduction in deaths, and there's some reason to think this is an inherent limitation of drugs that try and reduce viral replication. This study only seems to cover patients who haven't been hospitalized at the point when they start the treatment.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#205

Post by base698 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #141
tsywke44 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same antivaxxers who ”refuse to take experiemental drugs from big pharma Pfizer” will gobble this pill down no questions asked. Which just proves, the anti-vaxxer moment is based on the primitive instinct of ”pain and needles=bad” Being scared of vaccines should be considered the same thing as having a fear of dentists. Or pets hating going to the vet.

I'm not sure that's how it works. There's a calculus to this I don't quite understand. The group blesses and curses treatments based on contradictory criteria. Ivermectin is blessed, supposedly because it is cheap. Molnupiravir is cursed, because it is a new drug Big Pharma wants you to pay more for. The vaccines are cursed, even though they're cheap. Monoclonal antibodies are blessed, even though they are very expen…

It's related to the Lindy effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#206

Post by kibwen »

politician wrote: post #137
tsywke44 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same antivaxxers who ”refuse to take experiemental drugs from big pharma Pfizer” will gobble this pill down no questions asked. Which just proves, the anti-vaxxer moment is based on the primitive instinct of ”pain and needles=bad” Being scared of vaccines should be considered the same thing as having a fear of dentists. Or pets hating going to the vet.

Do open random executables that you get in your email? If not, why not?

Do you apply random security patches signed by your distro maintainers?

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#207

Post by yosito »

roenxi wrote: post #86

> This is a completely novel molecule... Then do we understand the risk profile of this thing? That sounds like the sort of innovation that people would want to be at the back of the queue for. Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

> Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

If this is a molecule with a short half-life that is broken down and expelled by the body, it isn't going to have random side effects that show up months in the future.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#208

Post by woodruffw »

tinus_hn wrote: post #83
woodruffw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real science does have a price. I'm not following. Are you under the impression that the COVID-19 vaccine trials weren't similarly double blinded?

No, I am talking about ‘scientists’ telling others that Covid-19 is magically limited to a 1.5m or 6 feet circle (depending in which country you live). Or that they have to be really careful outside, and that it’s more safe to not go for a walk and fatten up in front of the TV. Or that ‘covid 0’ is a valid policy and that if it doesn’t work it is the fault of this week’s scapegoat. And then censoring anyone who would…

Nobody, and I mean nobody, genuinely believes that COVID-19 can't be spread when social distancing measures are perfectly observed. The 1.5m/6ft distance was chosen based on both epidemiological models that show statistical decreases in contagion and the political reality that people (understandably) get very upset the more you ask them to stay away from other people.

The rest of your post doesn't reflect any government position that I'm currently aware of. Both my local government and the CDC encouraged me to go outside, while maintaining distancing, after the initial lockdown.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#209

Post by Steltek »

jartelt wrote: post #179
colordrops wrote: post #110

Does anyone have a sense as to when US society will completely eliminate COVID measures? Is it just me or is there no clear exit criteria anymore? This will go on forever without exit criteria.

I could see things starting to really ease up once all children have had a chance to be vaccinated and everyone else has had a chance to get their 6 month booster shot.

Not everyone is eligible for a booster shot.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#210

Post by neltnerb »

If you take an antiviral like this, do you still develop a good immune response to reinfection?

I wonder because almost everyone who might end up needing this isn't vaccinated (based on hospitalization rates) so I hope that at the end they also end up having some immunity to catching it again at least.

In the moment of course it is better to use than not.

Post reply on HN