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

31–40 of 344 posts

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#31

Post by monster_group »

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.

Correct. But to me it seems that pulling the lever to kill a few would be considered more culpable from legal perspective rather than not doing so (and let more people die). IANAL - I am curious to know how law perceives it.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#32

Post by ethanbond »

0-_-0 wrote: post #21
hannob wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like half of the bad publicity for AZ is their own fault. The blood clotting issue is not, but the bad studies and the poor communication totally are. Getting a warning letter from an US agency for publishing outdated data in a press release is quite a feat.

"The company says the agreed cut-off point for data was 17 February, by which time there had been 141 cases and efficacy was 79%. Within 48 hours, AstraZeneca had added more recent data. On a total of 190 cases, there was 76% efficacy (and as always 100% against severe illness and death). It’s not much of a difference." [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-ast...

Is this supposed to be some mitigation? A pharma company has a responsibility to publish accurate and up to date data. Full stop.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#33

Post by da_chicken »

refurb wrote: post #22

That’s seems like a bit draconian. There is no “safe drug”, “unsafe drug”. It’s a continuum and it’s balanced by the benefit. I find it hard to believe there isn’t a subgroup where the benefit of the vaccine doesn’t outweigh the risk.

There certainly is, but there's also other vaccines which don't exhibit this problem. Why should we administer AstraZenica or J&J when Moderna and Pfizer are available and don't have any correlated blood clot issues?

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#34

Post by makomk »

0-_-0 wrote: post #21
hannob wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like half of the bad publicity for AZ is their own fault. The blood clotting issue is not, but the bad studies and the poor communication totally are. Getting a warning letter from an US agency for publishing outdated data in a press release is quite a feat.

"The company says the agreed cut-off point for data was 17 February, by which time there had been 141 cases and efficacy was 79%. Within 48 hours, AstraZeneca had added more recent data. On a total of 190 cases, there was 76% efficacy (and as always 100% against severe illness and death). It’s not much of a difference." [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-ast...

That baffled me. They got a huge amount of stick for measuring up to the pre-determined cutoff point, which as I understand it is the correct way to do a scientific study if you want your results to actually be valid...

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#35

Post by MagnumOpus »

lordnacho wrote: post #9

Did this happen in the trials? I'm surprised, you'd think the risk - benefit balance would fall in favour of vaccinating.

A one-in-a-million effect doesn’t show up in trials that are run on 30,000 people. (Even if it does happen once, it is hard to quantify because these clots happen without the vaccine too, only maybe half/one-third as often.)

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#36

Post by ethanbond »

hef19898 wrote: post #23
emptyfile wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that sad? Do you think the CEO and shareholders approved that deal because their hearts are so good and pure, to help humanity? No, it was to become a vaccine manuf. in a time of pandemic, to make big bucks (since at cost sales end in August this year). Oxford scientists came up with the vaccine and the deal to manufacture it with a partner. It looked like a great deal until it turned out that AZ is completely…

How is AZ incompetent? On other aspects than PR, that is. Their vaccine is working, it is sufficiently effective by anyones standard. That mRNA vaccines turned out to be better is great, but it was not sure a year ago.

I think incompetent is harsh, but they had a bad data submission and also a dosing error. Neither is a good look. Neither ended up being a big problem but they could’ve been.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#37

Post by hef19898 »

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.

Slowely I'm getting the impression that a lot of decisions around AZ are politically driven. In Germany, the new recommendation is now to use Biontech for the second shot after AZ. In that recommendation, it is also stated that there are no studies nor data supporting that.

Quite funny, because there is, to my understanding, a study taking place in the Uk for that. It is expected to be done by end of April. Someone has to explain to me why that recommendation couldn't wait until there is data.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#38

Post by mytailorisrich »

mellosouls wrote: post #8

This seems like another overreaction that will be interpreted - rightly or wrongly - in the UK in political (Brexit) terms rather than medical or scientific (although they are clearly an important consideration). It's difficult to see how Denmark isn't failing its population with this decision.

If they're confident that they can source enough doses of another vaccine that has better efficacy and is not linked to serious side effects (even if very rare) then it makes sense for them to go with that one and drop AZ.

But if the alternative is no vaccine or AZ then it is indeed vastly better to continue using AZ.

Denmark's population is also less than 6 million so they don't need a massive supply compared to larger countries.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#39

Post by rsynnott »

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…

_Are_ there unvaccinated over-65s in Denmark? AIUI it's generally a bit ahead of the EU curve, and over-70s are generally done in most European countries.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#40

Post by refurb »

makomk wrote: post #34
0-_-0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The company says the agreed cut-off point for data was 17 February, by which time there had been 141 cases and efficacy was 79%. Within 48 hours, AstraZeneca had added more recent data. On a total of 190 cases, there was 76% efficacy (and as always 100% against severe illness and death). It’s not much of a difference." [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/26/how-the-ast...

That baffled me. They got a huge amount of stick for measuring up to the pre-determined cutoff point, which as I understand it is the correct way to do a scientific study if you want your results to actually be valid...

From what gathered, AZ said they had final data, but hadn’t actually finished the analysis, but preliminary numbers looked similar to interim so they just used those.
Post reply on HN