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

Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

pfizer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 446 posts

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#411

Post by nwallin »

eplanit wrote: post #126
nojito wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived, and that a relatively narrow band of the population is vulnerable to its worst effects. It's foolish to act as though this is worse than it is.

The original estimates put COVID-19 at approximately 3-4%. At the time I'm writing this post, the United States has had 253,309 deaths from 11,789,304 cases, or 2.14%.

Without the lockdowns, without the mask mandates, without social distancing, without closing establishments where people congregate, COVID-19 easily overwhelms healthcare systems. We saw this play out in Wuhan, New York City, Italy, and elsewhere. When the healthcare capacity is overwhelmed, the results are catastrophic.

It's all well and good to say, "well, 2% isn't as bad as we thought." But that's not how it is. The problem is that with 10-20% of all patients requiring hospitalization, the hospitals can't keep up. Healthcare is a finite resource. It's not just the COVID patients who suffer, it's everybody who needs hospitalization for anything.

It is foolish to act as though this isn't as bad as it is.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#412

Post by chaostheory »

caturopath wrote: post #348
chaostheory wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I missed it, there hasn't been any data released. I'm only seeing PR accouncements.

AIUI, the thing that makes a vaccine's effectiveness very short term, like flu vaccines, is the natural evolution of the virus, not its effect on the immune system. It's not that people who got a 2015 flu aren't still immune to the 2015 flu, it's that wild flu virii look different in specific ways that cause them to slip by. As such, I think these drug companies don't really have much to release for each vaccine. (Th…

> As such, I think these drug companies don't really have much to release for each vaccine.

They should still release the data. PR releases don't always match reality.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#413

Post by ahulak »

coldcode wrote: post #200
dragonwriter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time Larger studies don't make up for decreased time in either identifying long term effectiveness or identifying delayed effects.

If you want to wait a lifetime to see if there are any issues you have that choice. But vaccines, even mRNA ones, are unlikely to have any long term effects worse than the disease itself.

This sums it up quite nicely. What is worse? The vaccine or covid?

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#414

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

baybal2 wrote: post #256
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a "live" virus - it's an adenovirus (actually, two types of adenovirus) that's been modified so that it can't replicate. The adenoviruses have also been modified to carry the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Not really, it's not an inactivated adenovirus, just a strain that is much less strong in humans.

They apparently use what are called "replication-incompetent" or "replication-deficient" vectors: adenoviruses that have been genetically modified to be incapable of (or not very good at - I'm not sure) replicating.

Importantly, the vaccine does not use SARS-CoV-2, even in a weakened form. It just presents a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#415

Post by vondur »

joaomacp wrote: post #392
PandawanFr wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing this is the one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v...

From reading the abstract, that study comes to the interesting finding that with a highly effective vaccine, it is better to vaccinate the YOUNG first, to reduce the spread.

I guess that makes sense. The young seem to be the primary spreaders of the disease. Stop them, and then it slows the whole chain of infections. I can also see why they'd want to vaccinate the most vulnerable, if the young aren't really affected by the disease, it makes sense to skip them first. Conundrum I suppose.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#416

Post by pen2l »

joaomacp wrote: post #392
PandawanFr wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing this is the one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v...

From reading the abstract, that study comes to the interesting finding that with a highly effective vaccine, it is better to vaccinate the YOUNG first, to reduce the spread.

What about... workers in the cafeteria who handle our food, cashiers at supermarkets and waiters who bring food over to you. I'm shocked most of the papers I'm reading don't mention these folks who are at the very intersection of our daily lives!

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#417

Post by splonk »

pen2l wrote: post #416
joaomacp wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From reading the abstract, that study comes to the interesting finding that with a highly effective vaccine, it is better to vaccinate the YOUNG first, to reduce the spread.

What about... workers in the cafeteria who handle our food, cashiers at supermarkets and waiters who bring food over to you. I'm shocked most of the papers I'm reading don't mention these folks who are at the very intersection of our daily lives!

The paper assumes those people are vaccinated first, before the analysis for other age groups comes into play.

"Here, we consider that front-line health care workers and other essential personnel (e.g. firefighters, police) who should obviously be prioritized, have already been vaccinated."

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#418

Post by paulie_a »

coldcode wrote: post #197
paulie_a wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of those most at risk people and like hell am I going to get it first. It looks like it will be safe but I can weather a few more months self isolation while it is adopted on a more massive scale.

Me too, give my issues with asthma/age and not having a family to support me if I get ill, I am ready right now. If other people choose to wait 10 years that is their option.

People apparently didnt like my hesitation to be first in line for the vaccine. The weird thing is that I am not against this vaccine by any means, I hope it works very well. But you and me are in a position where we would be in a very bad situation if something went wrong.

I dont mind a few more months of staying safe, its not a big deal to me and Ill get it later on

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#419

Post by qwerty456127 »

prh8 wrote: post #192
qwerty456127 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite being extremely pro-vac I'm going to postpone getting vaccinated with this for as long as possible (at least a couple of years hopefully). Even if they would disallow me to travel abroad I would rather stay in my home country. I've heard about a guy who volunteered to try the Russian vaccine - he got extremely sick and almost died from inflammatory cardiomyopathy as the result. So I want to see thousands of p…

So....don't take the Russian vaccine? Maybe take notice the of 20k in each trial who have received the vaccine? Or maybe just go get Covid and trust those results?

> Or maybe just go get Covid and trust those results?

I believe I already had it. I have experienced unusual body temperature fluctuations and really unusual heart quirks on a weekend some months ago. My boss got tested (out of curiosity) positive for the antibodies. The numbers are huge and I meet a huge lot of people every day (nobody I've met in person reported any symptoms though). It seems logical to me all of us (people I know) have already had light/asymptomatic covid. I never meet old or fat people, I miss some but prefer not to risk.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#420

Post by splonk »

PandawanFr wrote: post #386
smrk007 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I get a link to the Medarxiv paper? Would be an interesting read.

I am guessing this is the one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v...

Pretty interesting paper, although I'm not sure it's the one OP was referring to. It's a pretty short paper with a whole pile of graphs at the end, so I encourage people to read it themselves. Quick notes from skimming:

- Treats it as an optimization problem for various levels of vaccine efficacy (10-100%), availability(10-100%), spread rate (R0 in {1.5, 2, 2.5, 3}), susceptibility to infection and symptomatic infection per age group.

- Four objective functions: symptomatic infections, deaths, non-ICU hospital usage at peak, and ICU usage at peak

- 5 age buckets: 0-19, 20-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75+

- Assumes 20% of population has immunity, and immunity lasts for a year.

- At higher efficacy and availability levels, there are some odd shifts to optimal vaccine distribution strategies. It's not strictly "oldest first" or "youngest first", there are some weird discontinuities in the middle buckets as well.

I had some questions about the wide 20-49 age bucket but it appears that it comes from a CDC planning scenario. It does look like that various curves start accelerating sharply past 50 or higher, so I guess treating the 20-49 group as one reasonably low risk group could be reasonable.

Post reply on HN