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

301–310 of 344 posts

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#301

Post by sharken »

de_keyboard wrote: post #136
eloff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

(3) only really works in isolated communities and islands such as those mentioned.

I would choose a mix of (1) and (2), but no matter what we say here it won't change the past.

Going forward we can either choose the goal of no masks, no vaccine pass and no restrictions this year. Follow Texas for more on how that works.

Or we can go on with restrictions and random shutdowns when infections rise above an arbitrary level.

I know i would choose the first option.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#302

Post by busymom0 »

de_keyboard wrote: post #136
eloff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Canada, specifically Quebec has been in full on curfew for a long time now. It hasn't helped and cases keep rising with now being the highest.

[1] should have been the best strategy.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#303

Post by busymom0 »

monster_group wrote: post #31
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.

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.

Don't the COVID vaccine companies enjoy blanket immunity?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vacci...

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#304

Post by dragonsngoblins »

hef19898 wrote: post #116
marvin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be correct if Covid was very widespread in Denmark, most of the at-risk >65 population wasn't vaccinated already and there weren't alternatives available very shortly. But none of these are true, so the overall ethical decision becomes more complicated than that. It's fallacious to describe this as an instance of the trolley problem, as there's also the public's trust in vaccines to consider. You'll see th…

Decsions like that undermine trust. Now scepical people can point at Denmark and say: "See, it is dangerous, I don't take it" Because nobody will take time to understand how and why Denmark came to that conclusion. Not in a time where people are happy only reading half of a headline.

You mean people outside of Denmark. Inside of Denmark people will look at the next vaccine the government decides to go with and feel more willing to trust it precisely because their government withdrew support of the one causing clots

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#305

Post by mint2 »

eloff wrote: post #191
jamaicahest wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not the government, or any politicians for that matter. It is the decision of medical professionals, basically the danish version of FDA decided to stop using Astra Zeneca vaccine. They have that level of power here in Denmark.

That's the problem. They're strongly biased towards the do no harm side of the balance - even when inaction causes much greater harm. It's simply a blind spot for them. They're the wrong group to make the call here, and the politicians should overrule them.

Doctors are supposed to do no harm.

And erroring on the side of caution is what tends to happen in democracies. An authoritarian government is much more suited to taking bold and controversial action. I’ll personally stick with the overly cautious government.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#306

Post by eloff »

splithalf wrote: post #286
eloff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The blood clots have already caused deaths, unless I'm mistaken. At any rate it's not "virtually certain absence of any deaths". I agree with your conclusion, but the premise has some issues.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#307

Post by sharken »

busymom0 wrote: post #302
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…

Canada, specifically Quebec has been in full on curfew for a long time now. It hasn't helped and cases keep rising with now being the highest. [1] should have been the best strategy.

Indeed, having your freedom taken away like that is an overreaction.

Until recently nobody in the US had the idea of removing restrictions and allowing 40.000 to gather for sport events.

That was until Texas did it and they are doing just as well as those with restrictions.

https://fee.org/articles/texas-has-fewer-covid-cases-than-mi...

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#308

Post by bobthepanda »

addy34 wrote: post #241
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…

>I wish I was living under (3). Sure it's painful in the short term, but compared to rolling lock-downs for over 12 months? Having spent the last year under (3), I dream of 1 or 2. That said, it very much dependent on the country. I live somewhere that is 20 x 20 miles in size (Hong Kong). The strictness of the border control (3 weeks in a hotel room if you leave and come back) make leaving pretty much impossible. Th…

Most people in positions 1 and 2 can’t really leave their countries either, and depending on how strict 2 is you may not have been able to travel far within your country either.

This is mostly an artefact of the fact that HK is so small. At least you’re not in Macau, which is 30 sq km?

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#309

Post by bobthepanda »

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…

China actually had a bit of advantage here, as other countries started shutting out Chinese nationals, preventing their citizens from going abroad and reintroducing the virus. Also it seems like as the first hard hit place its citizens started to become wary of traveling abroad earlier.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#310

Post by sofixa »

timr wrote: post #298
sofixa wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My claims are true, Sweden has significantly tightened restrictions. And to add insult to injury, their death rate is appalling, so their policy was indeed wrong on top of not working.

You said: > Sweden had to go back on it They did not. If your standard for "going back on it" is "adding some restrictions", then you are erecting a straw man argument. By this standard, every country in Europe "had to go back on it", as all of them changed their tactics over time. Also, not incidentally: I'm aware of no legitimate source for the claim that Sweden's hospitals were "full" (which is a non-specific clai…

When their policy is "let's avoid any restrictions and just ask people to stay away from each other", and then they add light ( compared to other countries) restrictions, how is that not "going back [on their initial policy]"? No other European country persisted with the "no restrictions" policy post-spring 2020.

And i never said the Swedish hospital system was "full", just that their death toll compared to their neighbours was appalling, and said neighbors had to add restrictions on movement from Sweden.

Post reply on HN