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

Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#51

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

ulfw wrote: post #50
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That indicates that paxlovid actually works It had no measurable effect in the measured group. You can't say that it works based on that. If it had a measurable effect in that group, you would expect to see improvement in the treatment group between the two scenarios. If (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) and also (65-69 no treatment) == (70-74 treatment), then (70-74 treatment) == (70-74 no treatment) by…

[flagged]

Which part of that are you having trouble with? We have two different age ranges, one of them separately measured with and without treatment, with the same outcomes across all groupings.

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#52

Post by boroboro4 »

gwervc wrote: post #37
talkingtab wrote: post #22

My experience was odd. And this is just a description with no science. I was vaccinated, got COVID. At no point were my symptoms serious. Because of age and past heart issues I was given paxlovid. Two weeks after the paxlovid (or something like that) I became sick again, more seriously. With COVID. The symptoms I experienced were much worse but not life threatening and I recovered fully. However, it was odd that the…

> I was vaccinated, got COVID How is this possible?

Just like it's possible to get COVID again and again. Neither your immune system nor COVID variant are stay the same over time.

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#53

Post by sunshinesnacks »

thenerdhead wrote: post #39

I believe Science would benefit from a different approach to reporting, as Derek’s analysis over the past four years has been consistently lacking. A responsible science reporter should present the full body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from a single study. Currently, a 900-person study is exploring Paxlovid’s potential for three clusters of Long COVID patients using a novel ultra-sensitive single-mole…

In the Pipeline is an “editorially independent blog,” [1] so I’m not sure that it’s fair to criticize Science or Derek Lowe for the “reporting.”

I’m a big fan of Derek’s blog. And I think his comments about long COVID at the end of the post are enough to convince me to ask for Paxlovid if/when I get COVID again (I’ve taken Paxlovid before).

[1] https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#54

Post by thenerdhead »

fn-mote wrote: post #48
thenerdhead wrote: post #39

I believe Science would benefit from a different approach to reporting, as Derek’s analysis over the past four years has been consistently lacking. A responsible science reporter should present the full body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from a single study. Currently, a 900-person study is exploring Paxlovid’s potential for three clusters of Long COVID patients using a novel ultra-sensitive single-mole…

Your comment does not cite any scientific evidence that contradicts the assertions in the article. The study you mention is ongoing and small. For comparison, one of the articles cited involves 280k patients with 35k treated. If you're going to call an analysis incorrect, you should should say what's wrong with it. With a comment this strong, I think you should disclose a little more of your own background / stance o…

here's my page with countless findings on the topic (you be the judge and feel free to search for other studies too): https://x.com/search?lang=en&q=(paxlovid%20OR%20Nirmatrelvir...

my general thoughts on this article and science "journalism" lately: https://x.com/atranscendedman/status/1856467031157289327

background: 4 years of long covid, work on nih efforts to cure it, and i don’t want anyone to suffer like millions of us do. so i share reliable info with the world.

note: paxlovid is a first-generation drug. in 2025, derek should follow more science rather than zeroing in on one study or griping about the taste when it can prevent your life from flipping upside down with long covid. he has literally written on the next version of it as well.

many elderly patients who are only vaccinated still develop long covid and are often dismissed due to their age. nobody deserves that when an antiviral is available until next-gen vaccine 2b trials finish soon and more treatment options hit the usa market later this year.

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#55

Post by thenerdhead »

talkingtab wrote: post #22

My experience was odd. And this is just a description with no science. I was vaccinated, got COVID. At no point were my symptoms serious. Because of age and past heart issues I was given paxlovid. Two weeks after the paxlovid (or something like that) I became sick again, more seriously. With COVID. The symptoms I experienced were much worse but not life threatening and I recovered fully. However, it was odd that the…

there are a number of computational/modeling studies suggesting paxlovid needs to be given for at least 7+ days to slow the viral load and prevent rebound.

Pfizer did a preliminary study(the FDA asked them) and quietly published their results on the topic. their data implies a second treatment might shorten the overall duration of the infection consistent with the studies i allude to above. but you probably haven't heard about this news!

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05567952?tab=results

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#56

Post by thenerdhead »

reify wrote: post #25

GoodRX, Paxlovid ranges from $1,497 at CVS to $1,696 at Costco. Fuck me! Only for rich muppets then? In my local Boots chemist Aspirin is about £2.00 for 28 tablets. Paxlovid is a combination of 2 medicines called nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir stops the virus from growing and spreading, and ritonavir helps nirmatrelvir from being broken down in your body long enough to do its job. Fuck me! again.

Ensitrelvir is looking to apply for global approval. It may be a much more affordable option.

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#57

Post by MrVandemar »

gwervc wrote: post #37
talkingtab wrote: post #22

My experience was odd. And this is just a description with no science. I was vaccinated, got COVID. At no point were my symptoms serious. Because of age and past heart issues I was given paxlovid. Two weeks after the paxlovid (or something like that) I became sick again, more seriously. With COVID. The symptoms I experienced were much worse but not life threatening and I recovered fully. However, it was odd that the…

> I was vaccinated, got COVID How is this possible?

Several ways.

To start with, I'm pretty sure it was established early on that the various vaccines don't prevent infection necessarily, but rather reduce the severity of the symptoms.

Vaccines are always one step behind, like they are for Influenza. You can get vaccinated against last years, and still catch this years.

Maybe the vaccine that was given was not given or stored correctly. There were also stories of anti-vaxxer medical staff giving fake vaccinations to people.

And biology is weird and complicated. Given the large human population and diversity, at some point there'll be an exception.

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#58

Post by directevolve »

energy123 wrote: post #17

This appears to be a hasty conclusion. Older people with paxlovid did equally well as younger people without paxlovid. That indicates that paxlovid actually works, given that older age leads to covid mortality! The author's only refutation of this is that the same pattern was observed before Paxlovid was around. But that pattern itself is an aberration that is not true of the general population, it's only true in tha…

They were comparing two time points as well as two age groups: before vs after Paxlovid became available, and late 60s (disallowed Paxlovid) vs early 70s (allowed Paxlovid).

There was no significant different before or after Paxlovid became available to the early 70s patients. This updates us against Paxlovid being effective in this patient population, for the specific outcome metrics.

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#59

Post by refurb »

gp wrote: post #30

I took Paxlovid twice. Horrible bitter taste, but kept the symptoms at bay. No long covid or persisting brain fog unlike some of my friends. Tested negative by the end of the treatment. My fiancé didn't catch it from my while I isolated. Derek doesn't have to take Paxlovid next time, but I will.

How doy ou know it kept your symptoms at bay?

Plenty of people don't get long Covid, why were you sure you'd get it if you didn't take paxlovid? Same with brain fog?

Re: Paxlovid: You'd have expected more

#60

Post by ragle »

ecocentrik wrote: post #27

My impression has been that taking Paxlovid resulted in faster recovery and less severe symptoms. This is an anecdotal observation with a tiny small sample size so I wouldn't discount placebo or a weaker variant. Still, I'd like to see a broader study that looks into long COVID and severity.

Likewise. I was 2-3 days into testing positive and had a fever that could not be controlled by maximum strength OTC antipyretics, awful cough producing glue-like greyish globs, headache, blood oxygen consistently 2-3% below typical for me, extreme fatigue.

~48 hours after beginning Paxlovid I felt almost back to normal. spO2 returned to typical wake / sleep levels, lungs clearing, little fatigue, etc.

Based on how sick I was when I started treatment, if historical patterns of recovery from respiratory illness are any indication I would have expected an additional ~9-14 days of tapering symptoms at minimum.

Instead I was basically totally normal again after ~5-6 days.

If I get COVID again I will absolutely ask for Paxlovid.

Post reply on HN