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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by thinkcontext »

spurgu wrote: post #971
okaram wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence ivermectin works against COVID. There is still one large study running, I think, that might show a small effect, but definitely not a big effect. Sorry you had a severe issue with your vaccine.

> There is no evidence ivermectin works against COVID Does that mean that there is no evidence that it doesn't work either? :)

The scientific method generally doesn't prove negatives. In this case, a trial is done where one group is given ivermectin and the other is given sugar pills (placebo). Their health outcomes are compared. If you have enough people in the trial and there is enough of a difference between the outcomes of the 2 groups then you say you have evidence that ivermectin is effective.

The well run trials to this point don't show a significant difference between the groups. The ivermectin advocates say that the trials have not been run correctly for various reasons like dosage, timing, etc. More trials can be run to try to address these concerns. This can be repeated any number of times but at some point people will give up trying if no effect is found.

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

#992

Post by aakresearch »

angelzen wrote: post #661
jayknight wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "stop", I guess I really mean slow/reduce/flatten-the-curve, etc. It's all a game of probabilities, and I guess I'm on team lets-work-together-as-a-society-to-reduce-the-chances-of-getting-and-spreading-sars-cov2. But that's slightly less catchy.

Are there any other considerents in life, or reduce-the-chances-of-getting-and-spreading-sars-cov2 is the only metric of relevance? Can you conceptualize any possible anti-covid measure that has too little of a benefit for too high of a cost, such that we should not deploy (or mandate!) it?

Perfect question, I was thinking of asking it here as well. I'll just expand it with a couple of points:

- What would the properties of vaccines need to be (efficacy, etc.), for experts to deem the vax mandates not reasonable?

- Same about face masks. How low the estimated efficiency must be for mandates to not be acceptable?

- Bonus point: how more soul-crushing the curfews and other movement limits need to be for them to remain in the realm of personal choice?

In other words, I would like to gauge how "falsifiable" is the "scientifically-informed" reasoning behind covid-enthusiasts' defense doctrine.

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

#993

Post by HelloMcFly »

cheaprentalyeti wrote: post #516
HelloMcFly wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this is studied and dosed appropriately vs. tacking a bunch of Ivermectin and shitting your intestines out based on a half-truth you read about from Facebook.

I lost a family member to one of those "supposedly treats Covid" drugs. It was called Remdesivir, and it had the full blessing of the people who told you Ivermectin causes you to shit your intestines out. It causes kidney failure. Just the thing for treating someone whose lungs are filling with fluid from viral pneumonia. I really wish at the time they went in the hospital (in December) that I had known the WHO had w…

> it had the full blessing of the people who told you Ivermectin causes you to shit your intestines out...

Is this a defense of Ivermectin somehow?

> I really wish at the time... that I had known the WHO had withdrawn it from their recommended treatment list the month before

Sounds like the people who don't endorse Ivermectin did in fact say the right thing. "The people who told you" I am referring to are doctors and health professionals, not Internet mobs.

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

#994

Post by a45a33s »

ceejayoz wrote: post #879
a45a33s wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"horse paste" has been approved for human use for over 30 years. not sure how expecting proper testing for new medicines became some conspiracy theory thing.

As an antiparasitic. If you do a liver transplant for a congestive heart failure patient, you’ll lose your license, even if liver transplants are a neat and useful procedure.

ever heard of "off label use"?

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

#995

Post by daddylongstroke »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #742
jollybean wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it's the opposite. Anti-Vaxx people seem to absolutely love non-vax treatments. I don't know if the rationalization is sound, but I'm not sure it's really that. The anti-vaxx stigma pre-COVID I think has had it's toll. The notion of 'government pushing you to take something' as well. Whereas, 'you get sick, you take a pill' is an easy concept. My fear is that a lot of people won't bother with a vax if…

This is also the same line of thinking that pushes for more knee replacements than dietician and gym trainer appointments. For some reason preventative thinking is alien.

No money in preventative thinking. People want the convenience of the magic pill, people don't want the lifestyle change.

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

#996

Post by daddylongstroke »

neltnerb wrote: post #973
prox wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, it’s not Covid that kills you directly , but a runaway immune response. What was the name… Cytokine storm?

Is it not always the case? Do we say that Ebola doesn't kill you directly, it's the hemorrhaging and multi-organ failure? Of course it doesn't kill you "directly" for some sufficiently narrow definition of direct.

Except for the flu apparently. The flu never kills. It's the pneumonia and heart failure.

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

#997

Post by thefounder »

pxc wrote: post #648
Robotbeat wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well hopefully money serves as a tool for prioritizing resources for important problems. Seems to be working well in this case.

Money has totally failed at allocating vaccinations and treatments for COVID-19 to 95% of the global population. But it's 'succeeded' in securing boosters for people who are already vaccinated in the richest parts of the world while global supply is lacking.

I guess that's just an unfortunate, cynical side effect of the "survival of the fittest".

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

#998

Post by cies »

ralmeida wrote: post #392
cies wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mRNA treatment is now also called a vaccine. That type of treatment has never been used on the general population until c19 came along and testing standards were reduced. It is a very interesting type of new treatment, but we lack long term data to say it's truly safe. Same can be said for any patented-molecule treatment. But that's just a new type of molecule, not a whole other type of treatment. Hence I'd say that…

Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease" , which in my view would fit the Pfizer/Moderna shots. Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you sub…

Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?), Webster did change it:

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886

> Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID.

I know.

> Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into?

It's all marketing at this point. mRNA-treatment does not sell. Vaccine elicits people's trust, and obedience.

> would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to?

Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending"

> And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"?

These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months. They skipped some steps in the process. Understandable, but still...

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

#999

Post by ralmeida »

cies wrote: post #998
ralmeida wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease" , which in my view would fit the Pfizer/Moderna shots. Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you sub…

Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?), Webster did change it: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 > Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. I know. > Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? It's all marketing at this point. mRNA-treatment does not sell. Vaccine elicits people's trust, and obedience. > would you clarify which definit…

> Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?)

Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry from 2017, same text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine&oldid=798...

Here's a link to the CDC definition from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.g... ("Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.")

> It's all marketing at this point.

Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water.

> Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending"

This FDA link claims Cominarty was approved in August 23 2021. The word "pending" is not found in this page.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...

> These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months.

"The first human clinical trials using an mRNA vaccine against an infectious agent (rabies) began in 2013." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine)

Of course the actual individual version for COVID-19 is newer, but then again, so is any flu vaccine that is updated basically yearly. What matters is the age of the "vaccine platform".

> They skipped some steps in the process.

Citation needed?

Post reply on HN