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

Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 569 posts

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#461

Post by Exmoor »

beagle3 wrote: post #415
542354234235 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pandemrix, a flu vaccine, caused a notable uptick in narcolepsy in Sweden, Finland and likely the UK. "The increased risk of narcolepsy due to vaccination was 1 in 18400 or 0.005%."[1] Considering the fatality and long term disability rate of Covid, and the way testing and safety protocols are done for vaccines, I don't really see how there could be an unknown and unseen risk that would outweigh the risk of contrac…

The risk of death in kids without underlying diseases is is approximately 0. It is not clear that giving (e.g. in the US) 30,000 of these kids narcolepsy is reasonable. It might be, but it’s not open and shut.

As far as I know, none of the COVID19 vaccines have been tested on children under 12 or are currently planned on being given to children.

Additionally, it's not as if the average vaccine has a 0.005% chance of giving you narcolepsy. That figure was for the one vaccine in one country which appears to be the only example in most people's living memory of a vaccine possibly causing long-term side effects (it's not even proven the vaccine was the cause). There have been tens of billions of vaccines given during this time period and this is the only example where there may have been long term side effects.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#462

Post by moultano »

StavrosK wrote: post #440
moultano wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People join the military not knowing whether or not they will ever go to war, yet they still join. By doing so they risk death, dismemberment, and all manner of long term disability under the belief that doing so makes everyone else safer. If exposing a few people on purpose is a moral wrong, then surely allowing millions of them to contract it by accident so that a few people in your RCT can become infected by chanc…

I don't follow, how is it worse to reach a lot of people in case some of them catch it in an unrelated manner worse than infecting them on purpose?

A traditional trial requires you to wait for the pandemic to spread in order to get enough positive people in your trial for significance. It's effectively like "challenging" random people in the public in the hopes that some of them are in your treatment group.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#463

Post by bumby »

_jahh wrote: post #457
bumby wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your points are baked into the data that I linked. The metric within is "HAQ Index" which stands for "Healthcare Access and Quality". I.e., access is part of the measure. In the US everybody has access, which is part of the problem that drives costs higher. E.g., if you don't have insurance you can walk into an emergency room and get treated even if it's not an emergent situation. If you don't have insurance, there i…

this is completely missing the point, people don't take chronic or slow-developing issues to the ER so they get worse and have catastrophic consequences resulting in both worse health outcomes and more expense because by the time they do come to ER it's a more serious intervention = $$$$

I addressed that in a different comment (I think we submitted comments at roughly the same time).

I completely agree that preventative healthcare is lacking, partly due to the system and partly due to culture. If the OP had originally said "preventative healthcare" I wouldn't have much to disagree on, but they used a blanket statement implying only the wealthy have access to healthcare in general.

The US also gives free preventative healthcare to many subsets of the population

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#464

Post by nemo44x »

wbl wrote: post #392
nemo44x wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The delivery technique relies on LNP (lipid nano particles) which is fairly refined and existing therapeutics use today. There are potential patent violations though (both Phizer and Moderna possibly violating Arbutus patent) but it’s unclear to me how this affects distribution.

No judge in their right mind will grant an injunction when doing so will cost the lives of third parties. All the harms can be solved with a big check.

Yeah I'm not 100% familiar with the potential case here but I'd imagine it's in everyone's best interest to ensure that the medicine is not hindered in its ability to be manufactured and delivered and that the company that holds patents on the delivery vehicle (LNP) would be compensated justly.

It isn't a new thing for what it's worth. Going back to earlier this year it has been looked at, but we don't really have a clear picture on what will shake out.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#465

Post by StavrosK »

moultano wrote: post #462
StavrosK wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow, how is it worse to reach a lot of people in case some of them catch it in an unrelated manner worse than infecting them on purpose?

A traditional trial requires you to wait for the pandemic to spread in order to get enough positive people in your trial for significance. It's effectively like "challenging" random people in the public in the hopes that some of them are in your treatment group.

Sure, and betting that someone will die is still way way better than murdering them.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#466

Post by moultano »

tantalor wrote: post #402
moultano wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point that challenge trials don't determine safety is accurate, but most of the article is again arguing about the ethics rather than the efficacy. Imagine if volunteers were not permitted by ethicists to storm the beaches of Normandy because their safety could not be guaranteed. Our current testing protocol requires letting the virus rampage through the population before the trials will achieve statistical signi…

I tend to agree in the case of Covid, but I'll play devil's advocate... Suppose we replace Covid with "car crashes" and vaccine with "seatbelts". This is a good analogy because crashes are rare and we can't cure trauma (like on Star Trek). It would be absurd to deliberately cause car crashes in order to study the effect of seatbelts. For the experimental group, there will still be some minor injuries. For the control…

That sounds more like doing challenge trials for an ebola vaccine, for which I'd expect you'd get very few volunteers. Still though, if there are people willing to risk sacrificing themselves, and the information would definitely save lives, we should let people do that for the greater good. The world's militaries throw away far more lives for far less benefit.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#467

Post by wobbly_bush »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #359
est31 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor countries are hit by covid-19 as well. Those folks deserve a vaccine too. Even if you don't care about the Humanitarian side of this, the west benefits from that directly by not having giant reservoirs for the virus.

Plus, they travel to the rich countries.New vaccines are coming in. China will probably use their own, India will copy one and costs next to nothing. Donations will make sure everyone has one.

> India will copy one and costs next to nothing

India's Serum Institute has already partnered to mass produce this vaccine. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/oxford-says-covid-19-vaccine...

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#468

Post by fjdjsmsm »

bumby wrote: post #446
coliveira wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US healthcare is good only when considering those who can pay to access it. But since large swathes of the US population cannot afford to have access (expensive insurance costs, even with Obamacare support), this becomes a mute point. If that is the metric, then even Brazil (and many other 3rd word countries) also has good medical care, because it works for the small percent of the population with money to access…

Your points are baked into the data that I linked. The metric within is "HAQ Index" which stands for "Healthcare Access and Quality". I.e., access is part of the measure. In the US everybody has access, which is part of the problem that drives costs higher. E.g., if you don't have insurance you can walk into an emergency room and get treated even if it's not an emergent situation. If you don't have insurance, there i…

In Europe, Canada, Australia, etc everyone has access. Why doesn’t access drive up their cost? Clearly access isn’t what is driving up the costs in the USA.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#469

Post by benchaney »

StavrosK wrote: post #465
moultano wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A traditional trial requires you to wait for the pandemic to spread in order to get enough positive people in your trial for significance. It's effectively like "challenging" random people in the public in the hopes that some of them are in your treatment group.

Sure, and betting that someone will die is still way way better than murdering them.

Actively preventing someone from saving a third person is murder. Even if there is risk involved.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#470

Post by StavrosK »

benchaney wrote: post #469
StavrosK wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and betting that someone will die is still way way better than murdering them.

Actively preventing someone from saving a third person is murder. Even if there is risk involved.

Who is preventing whom from being saved?
Post reply on HN