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

281–290 of 344 posts

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#281

Post by jopsen »

sdeframond wrote: post #142

Does anyone know how many doses of other, presumably safer, vaccines Danemark has? Perhaps they have the luxury to choose which jab to use, in which case it seems logical to prefer the safer one. TFA mentions that the decision would delay vaccine rollout by 4 weeks. What is the impact of that delay?

Looks like 1-2 deaths per day.

But then again, we are vaccinating the most vulnerable populations first. And they won't see much delay.

Personally, I think this is going to further increase the risk of additional delays.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#282

Post by mensetmanusman »

Reason077 wrote: post #76
mensetmanusman wrote: post #50

This is a fascinating example of cultural differences. I wonder if this provides some insight to which societies will be more or less likely to allow driverless vehicles, which suffer conceptually from the same type of trade off.

Nobody would be banning the AstraZeneca vaccine if it were the only one we had. But so long as alternative vaccines are available, there is a "why take the (very small) risk when you don't have to?" argument. Driverless vehicles aren't a valid comparison. They're either safer than human drivers or they're not, something easily proven by monitoring and statistics.

DVs will be safer for some but will have edge cases (like all vaccines).

This is the well known trolly problem playing out (as discussed elsewhere in this community).

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#283

Post by ceejayoz »

mzs wrote: post #261
sbuk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the vaccines have 100% efficacy in preventing ICU admissions so far.

not quite >Hospitalization data for 129 of the fully vaccinated cases is incomplete, Sutfin said. But for the 117 people for whom hospitalization records are known, 11 were hospitalized. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/04/06/v... "However, since February 1, eight people with vaccine breakthrough have been hospitalized. DOH is investigating two potential vaccine breakthrough cases where the patien…

Hospitalizations are not necessarily ICU admissions.

(We should expect some ICU admissions, though. A perfect 100% is not going to hold forever, but that it's taking this long is a really great sign.)

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#284

Post by staticman2 »

slashdev wrote: post #277
staticman2 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I put it crudely to be dramatic, but it is the core function of a government to choose between competing harms and benefits for different segments of the population (including populations outside their borders when it comes to foreign policy.) > There aren't a lot of humans who would support harvesting the organs of a healthy patient to save 5 sick ones, for example. That's a strawman. I'm not taking the position tha…

Harvesting 5 organs from 1 healthy patient to save 5 sick patients is a variation of the trolley problem, not just a random straw man I picked. The fact that people who are surveyed are fine pulling a lever to kill 1 person to save 5 people from a runaway trolley but don't want to harvest the organs of 1 healthy person to save 5 sick people shows that these ethical problems are "difficult" as one person said up-thread.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#285

Post by nasmorn »

gms7777 wrote: post #25
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…

It's a real world example of a trolley problem. They're choosing to let a large group risk severe disease or death through inaction, rather than pulling the lever and have a small group be at risk due to their actions.

I mean the 65+ group is also most at risk of dying of Covid. I don’t see the moral hazard here. I understand that you can argue against vaccinations of younger people whose Covid risk might be eclipsed by the thrombosis risk. But for old people it seems simply stupid.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#286

Post by splithalf »

eloff wrote: post #74
gms7777 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a real world example of a trolley problem. They're choosing to let a large group risk severe disease or death through inaction, rather than pulling the lever and have a small group be at risk due to their actions.

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.

No! There are NOT likely deaths on both sides. That’s the insanity!

There are certain deaths on one side (no vaccine) and virtually certain absence of any deaths on the other side.

It is cowardice and self importance triumphing over reason and morality. Imo

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#287

Post by splithalf »

dragonwriter wrote: post #271
hef19898 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! But having elections in 2021 makes every Covid-related decision by definition political. And that doesn't help. I should have made clear that the problem with elections is the timing, not elections in general. Governments should be focused on getting the population vaccinated as fast as possible now, and not worry about their / (re-)election chances.

> But having elections in 2021 makes every Covid-related decision by definition political Every COVID-related (or other) decision by or about government is political, by definition, independent of election timing. Election timing may effect the degree to which the people of a democratic state have effectively direct input on an issue whose existence and political salience would not be regularly forseeable, but that’s…

People often mean “partisan” when they say political. The parties of course control our definition of politics but that’s done with the consensus of party line voters, unfortunately the overwhelming majority of our electorate.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#288

Post by scarby2 »

de_keyboard wrote: post #188
febeling wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

(2) leads to fewer deaths overall than (1). (1) gives better quality of life to the healthy than (2). (3) leads to fewer deaths than (1) or (2), but it requires political will. If you can pull it off, (3) is what you want. That's a big "if" though. As a healthy person, I personally would have been better off under (1). However, I think the economic and emotional damage of that number of deaths would have been too muc…

I'm not certain the emotional damage around the deaths would be worse than the emotional damage around the restrictions. Same with the economic damage, I'm entirely certain the the economic damaged caused by the death of a large amount of largely economically inactive persons would have been way less than the economic damage caused by forcibly shutting down large chunks of the economy.

The whole 1 vs 2 thing is just a matter of how much must the whole suffer for the benefit of the few?

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#289

Post by abricot »

throwaway4good wrote: post #30
emptyfile wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/professor-efter-vaccine-st... After vaccine stop by Johnson & Johnson: If we only have Pfizer and Moderna we won't be finished until end of 2021

That is a guess made by one person. The article doesn't indicate that they really say down and did the math.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#290

Post by scarby2 »

Izkata wrote: post #243
lukasLansky wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a narrative that misses the point of the thread and is generally not compatible with hard data. For example, the amount of suicides in US during 2020 went down .

CDC only tracks actual suicides, not attempts. Attempts and suicidal thoughts are up: https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/12/16/pediatricssu... Also, on the CDC stats, deaths by "unintentional injuries" is up by way more than suicides are down.

Has anyone not had suicidal thoughts since the lockdown?
Post reply on HN