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

Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

fiercebiotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#671

Post by Seredo »

DownGoat wrote: post #353
ashleyn wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The long term risks for either is not knowable. Hospitalisation is an acute scenario that can lead to death, negating any concerns about the long-term in the first place. The short term risk of hospitalisation in the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated is well-known. Given what we know, it still makes sense to get vaccinated, and it may make sense for those at risk of hospitalisation (vaccinated or otherwise) to take…

Actually the long term risk of the covid-19 vaccines is well understood. You will not get a side effect from the vaccines in a year from now. For all of the vaccines created for any disease, the longest recorded period between taking the vaccine and side effects presenting is 6 weeks. 3.1 billion people are fully vaccinated for covid-19, many of them have been for longer than 6 weeks.

In Norway, some children developed narcolepsy after being vaccinated with Pandemrix. The average time from vaccine (or influensa) until developing narcolepsy was 8 months.

https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2017/pandemi/ (in norwegian)

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#672

Post by tinus_hn »

n8cpdx wrote: post #67
tinus_hn wrote: post #25

So, is this expensive and patented and does it have limited availability?

Does it matter? Vaccine flows like water these days, and at least in the rich world, nearly everyone who needs this chose to be in that position. Making that choice should be incredibly costly.

Oh it matters. A drug that is not expensive, patented or is readily available surely will either never really be tried or will be tried in such a way it’ll never succeed.

Expensive drugs will enjoy trials designed and sponsored by their manufacturers.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#673

Post by robocat »

DownGoat wrote: post #353
ashleyn wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The long term risks for either is not knowable. Hospitalisation is an acute scenario that can lead to death, negating any concerns about the long-term in the first place. The short term risk of hospitalisation in the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated is well-known. Given what we know, it still makes sense to get vaccinated, and it may make sense for those at risk of hospitalisation (vaccinated or otherwise) to take…

Actually the long term risk of the covid-19 vaccines is well understood. You will not get a side effect from the vaccines in a year from now. For all of the vaccines created for any disease, the longest recorded period between taking the vaccine and side effects presenting is 6 weeks. 3.1 billion people are fully vaccinated for covid-19, many of them have been for longer than 6 weeks.

> You will not get a side effect from the vaccines in a year from now

There are possible severe negative effects due to vaccination, even if there are zero medical side effects. Herd vulnerability could cause widespread harm - there is a monoculture of immune responses and monocultures have vulnerabilities. I agree it's unlikely to have severe long term downsides, and the short-term gains are very significant. Note that I'm mostly pro vaccination.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#674

Post by donkarma »

yosito wrote: post #603
refurb wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who worked in toxicology, this is absolutely a false statement. This molecule is a covalent binder - it basically attaches itself permanently to proteins. It absolutely could have effects long after the free molecule is metabolized and excreted. The molecule is designed to be selective for the Covid protease but off-target effects are inevitable. Do I think that is likely? No, because the FDA isn’t stupid…

> this is absolutely a false statement. This molecule is a covalent binder That's why I said if , I know nothing about the molecule.

But you're giving statements out like you know everything about it, and the fact you said if has no relation with the fact it binds to proteins

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#675

Post by dymk »

keneda7 wrote: post #625
dymk wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s vaccinated, so it seems a little dramatic to be calling OP a bad person and that they suck.

Vaccinated people still spread the covid and vaccinated people still get covid. Most of my friend group was infected when two vaccinated friends came up to visit. They said they were feeling sick but because they were vaccinated it was fine. I think everyone in the group but 1 person was vaccinated. The idea that once you are vaccinated you don't need to social distance or wear a mask is wrong and is getting people s…

Vaccinated people don’t take up hospital beds. That’s the resource that’s constrained.

Vaccinated people also have a lower rate of transmission.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#676

Post by penultimatebro »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #549
penultimatebro wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mRNA vaccines do not, and never have, reduce the spread of the virus from one infected person to someone else. The only thing they do is reduce symptoms. That has been known from clinical trials. Everything else is a talking point not based on a peer reviewed scientific study. Or if you think you have a study that refutes this, please post.

> The mRNA vaccines do not, and never have, reduce the spread of the virus from one infected person to someone else That's simply not correct.

Well I’m convinced. Case closed, you win.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#677

Post by rob_c »

deworms wrote: post #668
rob_c wrote: post #529

Grand. Anything which stops the idiots stopping us from getting back on with our lives is good. Not for me thanks, but it gives people options to make decisions for themselves.

By now you should have noticed that you're not "getting back on with your lives" no matter how good a boy you are and how many freedoms you give up. You should have resisted this from the start, this is your choice.

Frankly given the work I've done demonstrating the anti science direction policy has taken and the work I've done to call out the bad "science" since the start you should be thankful for the work I've done.

As for further "resistance" as soon as the 5G anti-vax nutters started i started looking out for me by putting money in the bank. My response from idiots insulting me over the last 2 years is too stop carrying about _your_ freedoms being taken. I'm looking out for me and I've had it with people pretending to understand topics without at least reading and properly understanding article summaries...

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#678

Post by Consultant32452 »

skrbjc wrote: post #639
Consultant32452 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US the nation-wide ICU vacancy is down to pre-pandemic levels. There may be anecdotes of individual hospitals that have a lot of COVID patients in ICU, but it's simply not true that this is a wide spread problem.

It's funny that people read the same data with such different interpretations. This is why I feel like the insistence of "just look at the data" rarely leads to a clear decision, and anyone working at a company that has dealt with giving data to people to make decisions will know this intimately. People use data to make their point, and if the data doesn't agree, then they slice it or adjust it or reason their way ou…

There are several problems, but a big one is just the way the news works. ICUs are designed to run at near capacity and are overwhelmed all the time if, for example, there's a big car accident. Right now, all eyes are on the pandemic and I'm sure it's true that there's places in the country where ICUs are full up with pandemic patients. But the way the news cycle works, "ICUs at capacity with COVID patients" gets a lot more clicks than "ICUs in this hospital are always at capacity, but now they are at capacity with COVID."

Also, there's been a couple of big hoaxes that have circulated like the one about how ERs were full of Ivermectin ODs and they were turning away car accident victims.

Here's the actual real-time-ish data of ICUs for the country:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-...

Right now the national average for ICUs is 68% occupancy. Also from that article:

>The national average I.C.U. occupancy in 2010 was 67 percent, according to the Society of Critical Care Medicine, though the occupancy baseline changes depending on the place, time of year and size of hospital.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#679

Post by sokoloff »

HWR_14 wrote: post #372
pezzana wrote: post #349

> Pfizer’s phase 2/3 trial randomized non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who were at high risk of progressing to severe illness to receive placebo or Paxlovid, a combination of the protease inhibitors PF-07321332 and ritonavir. The efficacy analysis is based on 1,219 patients. One noteworthy feature is the newness of this drug: > PF-07321332 was developed from scratch during the current pandemic. It’s a reversi…

>Less than two years from lab to clinic is highly unusual. I assume like most other COVID vaccines/treatments, the timeline is shrunk by going straight to more expensive phases of the trial instead of having preliminary ones of escalating cost and confidence. Or at least prepping for them. For instance, all the vaccines started setting up commercial production around the same time they started trials, because it's no…

This has interesting implications when we consider how much money drug companies “should” be paid for inventing important new life-saving medicines.

I frequently hear/read complaints of "that's outrageous [that this medicine costs $X]!"

Well, maybe it is; maybe it isn't, but if you make sure it costs $X/100, I can be pretty sure you'll get less drug R&D.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#680

Post by thehappypm »

fredliu wrote: post #621

> As a protease inhibitor, Paxlovid is free from the theoretical DNA-alteration risk tied to the mechanism of action of Merck’s molnupiravir. This is the line I was looking for. Not that I know how protease inhibitor works, but looks more like a traditional anti-viral approach v.s. the potentially DNA altering molnupiravir.

I doubt we’ll see molnupiravir getting approved in this context now. I think the mechanism just has too much risk.
Post reply on HN