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

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 364 posts

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#331

Post by incrudible »

Pyramus wrote: post #326
incrudible wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not even close, for women age 20-29 the risk of fatal thrombosis is 1:250k I have yet to find a source that gives the risk for that cohort. > ...while Covid is somewhere around 1:25k Even if it's an order of magnitude higher, the risk of a actually getting a PCR-confirmed infection is an order of magnitude lower. Again, Germany: 28 deaths of women in that age group over the course of the pandemic[1], including…

> I have yet to find a source that gives the risk for that cohort. The data is publicly available for many countries, e.g. here for the UK: [1] Report on adverse reactions until 16 Jun 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid... [2] Vaccination statistics https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas... Check the table with reports and fatalities by age, and the paragraph inter…

> Check the table with reports and fatalities by age, and the paragraph interpreting the data. Together with [2] you can calculate the fatality rate for the 20-29 group. In the end you'll end up with a fatality rate for women age 20-19 in the range of 1:150k-300k (quick back of the envelope calculation).

I really can't, because there is no information on which age group got which vaccine. The AstraZeneca vaccine has been restricted in the UK for under-30-year-olds as early as April.

Here is a study (Italy) that estimates the risk-reward ratio (fatalities caused vs. prevented) is unfavorable for the entire below-30 age group, including males:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.07.21256826v...

> The source I posted is a metastudy, computing IFR based on seroprevalence from many different countries, so PCR tests have nothing to do with it.

This is true, but PCR tests is how we count actual infections and deaths. When calculating the risk of getting infected, IFR alone doesn't help me, I need PCR tests as a metric of how many infections are actually occuring.

Alternatively, I could use seroprevalence: Assuming that seroprevalence is 10% (way higher than in your somewhat outdated source), then over the course of the pandemic, assuming IFR in our cohort is 1:25K, then the absolute risk was 1:250K - roughly on par with the "vaccine fatality" scenario. This is just an example to show that the numbers aren't clearly in favor of the vaccine.

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#332

Post by mrj »

sjwalter wrote: post #324
mrj wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing against consent, of course. The data is out there but you are misinterpreting it. I just think you're taking issue with silly things, overblowing the risks and trying to make other people scared. That's seriously messed up. Be truthful. You've decided not to take it no matter what. Now you're back-filling reasons not to. If you truly were about your ethics, you'd stop trying to make others afraid beca…

You said I was spreading doubt about vaccines during a deadly pandemic. I have said zero about the safety of the vaccines. I have only stated the unassailable fact that they have not completed phase 3 trials. How is telling the facts about the status of the vaccines spreading doubt? I have taken plenty more vaccines than you, I'm sure, I'm not some anti-vaccine nutcase. I love medical technology, I love vaccines. I a…

Try joining the Marines. I remember walking in a line with sleeves rolled up while they shoot you with everything they've got, all at once, then you drop trousers and get some more.

You know nothing about me.

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#333

Post by motohagiography »

r00fus wrote: post #308
motohagiography wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, what is the effect of a covid-unvaccinated person entering a room full of covid-vaccinated people? We need clarity on that message. Some people just aren't motivated by fear or shame, and so for a universal campaign to succeed, we need to appeal to those peoples' sense of reason.

Let's flip that around: what is the effect of an asymptomatic COVID sufferer entering a room of people (some of whom are vaccinated vs. some who are not)? Children aren't currently eligible for any vaccine, and some immunocompromised people can't get the vaccine. I disagree reason is somehow going to overpower the conspiracy machine. Rules and consequences speak directly to those too greedy to vaccinate or are petrif…

Two things, if you don't think you can reason with them you aren't going to to try very hard so why bother, which is precisely their objection - but the second is, sure, given everyone who wishes and needs to be vaccinated can get it, what is the effect of an asymtpomatic carrier?

I'm saying it does not justify a relationship where people show vaccine passport ID everywhere they go. Greed is a pretty coarse rationale, I'd suggest it's on the critic to be more persuasive. Conflating the arguments against passports with arguments against vaccination is too disingenuous to accuse someone of, but if someone did't see the difference, it sort of ceases to be an intellectual discussion at that point. So what is the effect?

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#334

Post by sjwalter »

peter422 wrote: post #328
sjwalter wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having a hard time understanding your question because the only way I can interpret it seems to imply that you think it is better to lie to people about the status of a medical treatment than it is to be honest, in a gambit to ensure more people accept administration of the treatment. Is that what you're implying? To directly answer your question: I do not think the ethical calculations change one single iota bas…

You are the one who is calling something that is obviously safe, not safe. You think you are smarter and more thoughtful about this than the experts who debated it in the open for hours upon hours to decide it was safe and should be available to everybody. You said earlier you were safe because of your vitamin D levels. The science on the protective nature of vitamin D to COVID is not clear at all. But you claimed it…

I never said anything was safe or not safe. I claimed that the long-term safety profile of the vaccines is unknown. This is demonstrably true.

It seems like you're claiming anything that gets an EUA, regardless of FDA trial status or outcome, is "safe".

That would imply you believe FDA Phase 3 trials are irrelevant, and that safety, particularly long-term safety, is easy to assess without doing any long-term safety studies.

That's quite a strange position to take, but OK, you can take it.

I trust the FDA, however. It's strange to be arguing with somebody who doesn't trust the FDA, but here we are. I trust them, and they think long-term safety trials for pharmaceuticals are really important. You seem to disagree. That's fine.

I agree that the vaccines show good safety profiles for older patients in the short term. The younger the cohort it's administered to, the greater the number of adverse events occur, however, which is worrying, because it's the opposite for covid. But still, they look reasonably safe for the 18+ crowd, in the short term.

You seem to think they're perfectly safe in the long-term based on no studies. That's a cool, if strange, way of magical thinking. I think differently, and I seek data and trustworthy sources for my medical information.

For what it's worth my doctor also recommended I don't get the vaccine, for the same reasons I've laid out here.

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#335

Post by michaelmrose »

willmadden wrote: post #240
michaelmrose wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory this is true but in reality half of the US population just isn't smart enough to evaluate such a question and those who are hesitant are virtually exclusively drawn from this portion. This is well highlighted by the fact that the societal and individual risks of avoiding vaccination are so insanely high while the risk of vaccination is virtually insignificant. If I offered you a chance to skip rope or play…

>those who are hesitant are virtually exclusively drawn from this portion. Well, that's complete BS. The list of people expressing concerns about the mRNA / spike protein based injections includes the inventor of the PCR test (Nobel Prize winner), the guy who invented Ivermectin (Nobel Prize winner), the guy credited with inventing mRNA vaccines, the guy who discovered that HIV causes AIDS (another Nobel Prize winner…

I'm unsure how they get the number of people needed to vaccinate to save one life as 16000. They themselves say that 1 in 200 infected will die if infected. One should assume that like the seasonal flu that nearly everyone including those that have been infected will eventually get it with a fatality rate that cannot reasonably be fully predicted by looking at prior data because the virus will mutate and get better or worse and treatments may get better as well. This also doesn't fully cover the decrease in lifespan from damage sustained by people who aren't immediately killed.

It's entirely possible that we can vaccinate and eradicate or suffer from multiple waves that ultimately kill a few million in the shorter term and potentially a lot more over the next few decades. In the long run considering the cost of not destroying covid now might only require 100 vaccinations per life saved.

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#336

Post by peter422 »

nradov wrote: post #330
peter422 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the one who is calling something that is obviously safe, not safe. You think you are smarter and more thoughtful about this than the experts who debated it in the open for hours upon hours to decide it was safe and should be available to everybody. You said earlier you were safe because of your vitamin D levels. The science on the protective nature of vitamin D to COVID is not clear at all. But you claimed it…

The science on hypovitaminosis D being a serious risk factor for bad COVID-19 outcomes is now quite clear. This site has a fairly comprehensive index of the studies. https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/

There is a large difference in saying vitamin D is a "potent inhibitor" of COVID, and seeing that there is a correlation between people with normal levels of vitamin D and less severe COVID. Though even still the study results are mixed and still not ironclad, which is my point. And obviously any doctor (and I) would tell their patient to supplement vitamin D levels if they were low, but they would never say this somehow makes you safe(r) from COVID.

The OP is throwing around giant misleading statements like "potent inhibitor", while chiding others for incorrectly stating tiny details.

The vaccine is a "potent inhibitor" of COVID, and we all have the data to prove it. There is no other substance, other than monoclonals, which would meet that standard.

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#337

Post by sjwalter »

mrj wrote: post #332
sjwalter wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said I was spreading doubt about vaccines during a deadly pandemic. I have said zero about the safety of the vaccines. I have only stated the unassailable fact that they have not completed phase 3 trials. How is telling the facts about the status of the vaccines spreading doubt? I have taken plenty more vaccines than you, I'm sure, I'm not some anti-vaccine nutcase. I love medical technology, I love vaccines. I a…

Try joining the Marines. I remember walking in a line with sleeves rolled up while they shoot you with everything they've got, all at once, then you drop trousers and get some more. You know nothing about me.

A few of my friends used to be in the Chairforce and told me about their forced vaccination schedules. One had severe adverse reactions to some now-banned anthrax vaccine. None of them took the covid vaccine.

Strange you think we should all be as subservient as you were when you were a Marine. I mean, I get it, I want our armed forces to have a solid CoC that can be relied upon, but pushing it to the point where you have to obey orders to take random needles without any informed consent seems a bridge too far for me. Stranger still is you seem to think this is how we should operate in the civilian world.

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#338

Post by lame-robot-hoax »

sjwalter wrote: post #283
lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously didn’t read my link as it addresses exactly what you’re saying in your comment. Study completion date does not mean phase 3 trial completion date. “ However, these dates do not mean clinical trials will continue for this long, and instead reference continued safety monitoring after the vaccine has been approved and rolled out, which is standard practice within the industry” https://www.pfizer.com/news/p…

I'm guessing you didn't read the link you pasted as well. Note the correction at the top of the page. It is clear that I'm correct. The vaccines are still in phase 3 clinical trials, as reported by clinicaltrials.gov, the source of truth for such questions. Estimated Study Completion Date literally means the date that the Phase 3 trial study is estimated to be completed, at which point FDA goes through the process of…

It’s clear you are incorrect. Phase 3 trials have concluded as reported by all manufacturers. It’s literally that simple. Extended monitoring of those that were in Phase 3 does not mean Phase 3 is still ongoing. There is no debate to be had here, I am correct, and you are strangely insistent on misrepresenting anything I provide. The correction at the top of the previous article had nothing to do with what you claimed it did. Phase 3 met its endpoints for Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J full stop. They are over. You can write a bunch of irrelevant BS, but that’s all there is to it. I’m obviously fully aware what EUA is, do not talk down to me.

Please stop fear mongering and repeating falsehoods that have been proven time and time again to be incorrect.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitor...

https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus/vaccine/about-our...

“ This trial began July 27, 2020, and completed enrollment of 46,331 participants in January 2021. On November 18, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that, after conducting the primary efficacy analysis, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. On December 2, 2020, the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the U.K. authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, marking the first Emergency Use Authorization following a worldwide Phase 3 trial of a vaccine to help fight the pandemic. Shortly after on December 11, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use.”

Key words: met all of the studies efficacy endpoints, (Phase 3 is primarily designed to find EFFICACY), following a worldwide phase 3 trial

EUA does not equal still in Phase 3. Not even remotely correct.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

Key word: CONCLUDES

Your previous comments point to the long development of other vaccines as a mark against COVID-19 vaccines. Surprise surprise, a vaccine developed during a pandemic gets pushed to the front of the line and has full priority, no issues with funding, etc. The speed at which it was passed is not a slight against it, considering it was able to still make it through Phase 1, 2, and 3, and then ultimately gain EUA. Again, not because it was rushed, it still had to go through all other testing other vaccines had, if anything full approval was delayed so they could get 6 months of additional EFFICACY data.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/04/29/covid-19-vaccine-myth...

Re: Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may produce lasting immunity

#339

Post by nradov »

peter422 wrote: post #336
nradov wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The science on hypovitaminosis D being a serious risk factor for bad COVID-19 outcomes is now quite clear. This site has a fairly comprehensive index of the studies. https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/

There is a large difference in saying vitamin D is a "potent inhibitor" of COVID, and seeing that there is a correlation between people with normal levels of vitamin D and less severe COVID. Though even still the study results are mixed and still not ironclad, which is my point. And obviously any doctor (and I) would tell their patient to supplement vitamin D levels if they were low, but they would never say this som…

Did you actually read the linked studies? Several of them show clear evidence that vitamin D is a potent inhibitor of COVID-19 (although less potent than vaccination).

The latest meta analysis indicates that ivermectin is also a fairly potent inhibitor, although the evidence is weaker.

https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000001402

Post reply on HN