Live data from Hacker News

Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

reuters.com

91–100 of 344 posts

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#91

This decision seems illogical to many commenters here, but I assume the decision was made by professionals with all the data in front of them. Which then raises the question, why did these professionals make a decision so different than the "obvious" opinion here?

People on this platform, I assume, are familiar with the scientific consensus on these topics and generally side with the science. But one has to understand, that these decisions are not made directly by scientists but by politicians who have scientific advisors. And as politicians, they will factor in a lot more than just the hard science on a topic, which can result in seemingly unscientific decisions that go again…

Except this decision was made by the relevant authorities and not by politicians. If anything, Danish politicians are probably not keen on this decision, but have chosen to respect it.

It should also be noted that Denmark has a relatively low infection rate, which is probably why politicians has decided not to interfere in the decision.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#92

This decision seems illogical to many commenters here, but I assume the decision was made by professionals with all the data in front of them. Which then raises the question, why did these professionals make a decision so different than the "obvious" opinion here?

Because 'professionals' have no more clue than the rest of us.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it" - Feynman.

What you have here is the European "precautionary principle" in action. Whatever you do, don't get blamed for anything - whether you make any forward progress or not.

At 60 you have a 1 in 100 chance of being dead in the next year anyway. A 1 in a million extra risk on top of that is a rounding error.

The zero extra risk option is no longer available.

I've had the AZ jab. It's perfectly fine and does the job. And those downvoting this post are saying that I should be dead instead.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#93
Here is an official statement from the Danish Health Authorities about why AstraZeneca has been removed from the rollout:

https://www.sst.dk/en/English/news/2021/Denmark-continues-it...

The main takeaway is:

"In the midst of an epidemic, it has been a difficult decision to continue our vaccination programme without an effective and readily available vaccine against COVID-19. However, we have other vaccines at our disposal, and the epidemic is currently under control. Furthermore, we have come a long way towards vaccinating the older age groups where vaccination has a tremendous potential impact on preventing infection. Age is the main risk factor for becoming severely ill from COVID-19. The upcoming target groups for vaccination are less likely to become severely ill from COVID-19. We must weigh this against the fact that we now have a known risk of severe adverse effects from vaccination with AstraZeneca, even if the risk in absolute terms is slight,"

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#94
post #77
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's exactly it. There is a tradeoff to be made here with likely deaths on both sides, and the government is choosing much higher numbers of deaths because it looks better for them politically. That's immoral and cowardly. I don't see any way to justify the decision they've made logically.

This pandemic is basically this entire story. COVID deaths are much more visible than the missed cancers, the depression and drug abuse caused by lockdowns, so basically it’s an easy choice for governments, lockdowns are better politically.

That argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It assumes that the numbers caused by the lock-downs are bigger than the numbers caused by Covid.

It assumes that there is not positives to the lock-downs (maybe some people is less depressed at home than at their work, not deaths by flu, etc..) and, most important, it assumes that not lock-downs would not increase deaths by other causes (intensive care overworked).

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#95

This seems like another overreaction that will be interpreted - rightly or wrongly - in the UK in political (Brexit) terms rather than medical or scientific (although they are clearly an important consideration). It's difficult to see how Denmark isn't failing its population with this decision.

It is about picking a safer and possibly better alternative costing a few weeks delay.

In Denmark, at least among the people I talk to, there isn't much confidence in AZ. The feeling is that Moderna or Pfizer are safer with higher protection (also against mutations).

So the common feeling here is really that the government would fail the population by using AZ instead of the (possibly better) alternatives.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#96
post #3

Not giving it to 65+ people seems overly cautious. There are zero cases in that group and even just a small delay will mean many dead. This is trading a potential unlikely side effect for a large number of severe Covid cases in high risk groups. Edit: yes I'm aware they have only a dozen or so dead per week but that also translates to hundreds of severe cases, missed elective surgeries, etc. For what would most likel…

_Are_ there unvaccinated over-65s in Denmark? AIUI it's generally a bit ahead of the EU curve, and over-70s are generally done in most European countries.

As far as I know most EU countries are on a similar trajectory and only differ by a few percent (I.e. they use all the vaccines they get and most have only the common procurement).

What can differ is which groups are vaccinated, e.g. Sweden has 19% vaccinated with at least 1 dose but the coverage by age group is e.g 85% in 80-89 and just 35% in 70-79 and 60-69 is only 10%.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was getting the impression that pretty much any government decision around COVID-19 was politically driven, not just AZ. Actually that does not even sound very surprising.

Yeah, sounds about right. Having elections only seems to make these things worse.

I’ll tell you one thing that’s even worse than elections - no elections

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#98
post #68

There's a very special kind of arrogance going on in all the comment threads about the Covid vaccine suspensions. These decisions are being made by professionals. They have been trained to do exactly this kind of decision. They have access to the best possible data on both the risks of the vaccine, the risks of Covid in their local context, and the impact these decisions have on the national vaccination schedules. Bu…

For Germany, the latest AZ decision is not data based. recommending Biontech as a second shot after AZ, without trials and sudies for that, is the opposite of data driven. That's all I can comment on that, because I now nohing about clinical trials.

I do know one or two things about supply chains. And that knowledge tells me, that German authorities have zero idea what they are doing. If there is a vaccination schedule, I doubt there is one, it is not taken into account during these decisions. Because after ever such decision, nobody talks about the impact on the schedule. Seems to be different for Denmark so.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#99
post #3

Not giving it to 65+ people seems overly cautious. There are zero cases in that group and even just a small delay will mean many dead. This is trading a potential unlikely side effect for a large number of severe Covid cases in high risk groups. Edit: yes I'm aware they have only a dozen or so dead per week but that also translates to hundreds of severe cases, missed elective surgeries, etc. For what would most likel…

The >65 population in Scandinavia is largely vaccinated already, and incidence of new cases is low. So it's a decision that might be questioned, but which would have small real-world consequences even if it turned out to be incorrect in isolation.

That part of the decision might just be the combination of uncertainty combined with the public's skepticism towards this particular vaccine. Giving an impression of listening to the public might have been considered a better overall choice than making a big communication effort for little real-world benefit. Other vaccines will be available very shortly for the few >65 people not yet vaccinated.

Re: Denmark to permanently cease using AstraZeneca vaccine

#100
post #82

This decision seems illogical to many commenters here, but I assume the decision was made by professionals with all the data in front of them. Which then raises the question, why did these professionals make a decision so different than the "obvious" opinion here?

Because it's a kind of a trolley-problem that makes people make wrong decisions because of how society assigns blame. If the vaccine kills 1 person, they can be held directly responsible for that death. However, if the lack of vaccine kills 100 people, their deaths are the result of COVID, and would not be considered the result of the decision. In trolley problem terms, they would be blamed for pushing someone in fro…

And someone has already updated the wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Example_with_C...

Post reply on HN