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

221–230 of 344 posts

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#221

Post by staticman2 »

eloff wrote: post #190
mxcrossb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the trolley problem is that it’s hard to make the right decision. Yet apparently anyone who doesn’t make a decision based on the move naive application of utilitarianism is a coward.

At a government level you have to be able to weigh bodies. Because there are often deaths or serious harm on both sides of a decision. Just because it's a hard decision doesn't mean there isn't a right choice that minimizes harm. This is also true of the trolley problem. In this case one side is clearly tipping the scales by multiple orders of magnitude more. To choose that side for political reasons is cowardice and…

I don't know if "weighing bodies" is the right approach to government, but even if it is people who "weigh bodies" are not likely to remain in power very long. There aren't a lot of humans who would support harvesting the organs of a healthy patient to save 5 sick ones, for example.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#222

Post by slver »

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?

> 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.

The decision was made by politicians who only consider public reaction. Public reaction which is decidedly uninformed, and without all data in front of them.

I wish you were right. What you say should have been the case. All over the world though, we see the true nature of high-level decisions.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#223

Post by alkonaut »

notatoad wrote: post #219
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…

Here in Canada the AZ vaccine was never approved for use in people 65+, and it had nothing to do with the blood clotting issues. The blood clots only seem to affect under-50 people, but it seems like there might be other reasons to avoid giving it to the elderly

That was the case in many countries due to early signals of low efficacy in old people. Those concerns have since disappeared and these side effects have appeared. So in some countries the approval was entirely reversed from “only under 65” to “only over 65”.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#224

Post by tshaddox »

eloff wrote: post #185
usrusr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Fear to go anywhere near a medical environment. Long delays and cancelled procedures and appointments because medical professionals had other priorities.

Wouldn’t both of those situations be vastly worse if there were fewer or less strict lockdowns?

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#225

Post by powerapple »

eloff wrote: post #174
de_keyboard wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be in (3) though you have to isolate your country right at the beginning before the action can be politically justified. I'm quite surprised that China was able to pull it off, because they're a major trade economy and must have millions of people coming and going. Of course it helps to have a government that can take any action without regard for rights or political consequences. This is impossible I think for a…

You don't have the right to even smoke in a restaurant now, what's the right issue when talking about a health issue here. It needs the same reason as quarantine requirements being imposed on people. So many 'we are different' refuse to stay at home and wear masks.

The real tragedy is that most of countries are following UK and US as their model because most of their government policy makers are trained in US and US, and they don't have the capacity and courage to set out their own plans.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#226

Post by sudosysgen »

ghaff wrote: post #135
akie wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so exports are a political non-starter ...in the US and the UK. In the end it's also a reflection of what is important to a nation. Should the strong help the weak? Is it every man for themselves? Thank you for making my point. I think pointing to "international organizations" to do something, when you could have done something yourself, is a weak argument.

Why on earth would the US export when it's supply-constrained itself? Of course, the US can and will export once it has sufficient supply. But countries exist in large part to look after the self-interest of their own population. It would rightly be a complete political non-starter for the US to start shipping vaccines elsewhere while it still needed more doses domestically.

Everyone is supply constrained. Actually, the US is probably the country that is the least supply constrained.

Yet the EU and even India/China/Russia are exporting vaccines. This speaks a lot.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#227

Post by YinglingLight »

ceejayoz wrote: post #179
imwillofficial wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are literally 100% wrong. Less human contact, more stress, more suicide. We are social creatures and crave human contact. (Generally of course.)

> more suicide Except the actual statistics linked upthread say otherwise thus far.

HN'ers follow experts like the religious follow prophets. HN'ers hold statistics to be incorruptible, as Christians do the Bible.

Deluding yourself in thinking that the lockdowns haven't caused a rise in mental illnesses and suicides, deluding yourself into believing human physical contact has no importance. What won't you believe, if provided statistics from a 3-letter global organization?

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#228

Post by phicoh »

de_keyboard wrote: post #186
eloff wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be in (3) though you have to isolate your country right at the beginning before the action can be politically justified. I'm quite surprised that China was able to pull it off, because they're a major trade economy and must have millions of people coming and going. Of course it helps to have a government that can take any action without regard for rights or political consequences. This is impossible I think for a…

The lock-downs imposed in (2) countries were very effective and given a bit more time (and political will) they could have transitioned to strategy (3). Australia and China managed to do this.

If I look at the center of Amsterdam, in the past year there have been losts of tourists from all over Europe even when bars and restaurants are closed. So this means that any strict lock down would have to be coordinated at least within the EU.

In the past, EU countries did not want to delegate health care to the EU (except for approving medicine). So this would require lots of individual countries (including Sweden and, until this year, the UK) to suddenly agree on a single strict lockdown. Very unlikely to happen.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#229

Post by dv_dt »

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…

Vaccine availability from other sources can also figure into it.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#230

Post by incrudible »

sofixa wrote: post #212
incrudible wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The secret to not having hospitals overwhelmed is to have enough capacity in the first place, but also to avoid superspreader events. Sweden did ban some gatherings and they did close down schools briefly. Most other lockdown measures are questionable at best, including mandatory mask usage. They are clearly symbolic tools for the political class to signal that something is being done, but the data to support them is…

> The secret to not having hospitals overwhelmed is to have enough capacity in the first place Enough for what? Hospital capacity was wildly sufficient for regular times, but the pandemic turned that around. Even Germany, which has multiple times the capacity per capita than France, is struggling in that regard. What is "enough"? > but also to avoid superspreader events Lol. Events with more than 2000 people outside…

> Enough for what? Hospital capacity was wildly sufficient for regular times, but the pandemic turned that around.

Indeed, "enough" for normal times is not the same as "enough" for pandemic times.

> Even Germany, which has multiple times the capacity per capita than France, is struggling in that regard. What is "enough"?

Of course it's a "struggle" to suddenly work at capacity, but Germany wasn't in the situation of having to turn down patients. To the contrary, Germany was able to pick up patients from neighboring countries. That's "enough".

> Events with more than 2000 people outside ( at the best of times, usually it has been flat out forbidden), and 6-100 inside have been forbidden in France since last year. That obviously didn't help.

How do you know that it didn't help? We know from epidemiological studies that superspreader events were responsible for causing a surge of cases in a short amount of time.

> There is, check the US and Brazil.

There really isn't, we have countries with strong lockdowns doing poorly and countries with weak lockdowns doing relatively well, and everything in between. Lockdown measures are also difficult to compare, as are populations, as is testing and reporting.

For example, Brazil with minimal lockdowns is doing just as poorly as Peru, with heavy lockdowns. Florida is doing better than many other US states with heavier restrictions. Japan is supposedly doing well with few restrictions, but also performs little testing.

There are lots of variables and unknowns here and one can always cherrypick data to argue for or against lockdowns in various forms.

Post reply on HN