[HN Gopher] Pfizer's Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3...
___________________________________________________________________
Pfizer's Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study
Author : elorant
Score : 31 points
Date : 2021-12-19 21:50 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fdanews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fdanews.com)
| beaner wrote:
| The vaccines were also lauded as 100% effective in the early days
| by Fauci and others, so just a reminder that time and
| reproducibility matter before being too confident about it.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| I don't recall a single instance of 100% efficacy claim. It was
| around 92-97%.
| jmarbach wrote:
| You are arguing over semantics. In reality, the Pfizer vax
| has proven to be less than 10% effective at stopping a future
| infection.
| jjulius wrote:
| They never claimed it stopped infection, and they never
| claimed it would last forever. The claims they made always
| came with an asterisk that they typically were clear about
| clarifying.
| jmarbach wrote:
| You are completely wrong -- totally warped by the
| narrative.
|
| Look at the Pfizer press release, Nov 9, 2020 - the first
| sentence:
|
| "Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90%
| effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without
| evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first
| interim efficacy analysis"
|
| https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-
| deta...
| heyitsguay wrote:
| For the variants at the time. The spread of the delta and
| omicron variants was tracked so closely and garnered so
| much attention in large part due to their abilities to at
| least partially evade vaccine-induced immunity, but this
| was always a known risk. The larger the infected
| population, the more chances for such an event to occur,
| hence the importance of measures like vaccinations,
| social distancing, and lockdowns to curb the spread.
| jjulius wrote:
| First, as another user pointed out, for the variants of
| the time. Second, "completely" is a strong word there;
| your link, and the part you quoted, still clarifies that
| it's possible to get infected.
|
| Edit: You are also misreading what you're quoting[1].
|
| [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29619347
| someotherperson wrote:
| Maybe I'm misinformed, but as I understood it, COVID-19
| is the disease brought upon by SARS-Cov-2 infection. That
| line on its own doesn't suggest it prevents infection, it
| suggests it prevents the COVID-19 disease (i.e 90% chance
| of being left with a asymptomatic infection).
| jjulius wrote:
| You are 100% correct. You contract SARS-CoV-2, which then
| _turns in_ to COVID-19[1].
|
| [1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-00459-7
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's a technical distinction lost on the public. Maybe
| that's a bad thing, but it is what it is.
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's sophistry, but "COVID-19" in that press release
| means symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2, not just
| infection.
| junon wrote:
| Your own misunderstanding of the difference between SARS-
| CoV-2 and COVID-19 do not entitle you to assert
| _anything_ about the subject.
| vidoc wrote:
| > They never claimed it stopped infection
|
| True, but they sure as hell implied it was. For example,
| this fact check appeared in the search container of
| google early on: note the use of the double negative in
| the VERDICT.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-
| transmission/fa...
| kadoban wrote:
| That sounds low. Where did you get your numbers?
| jmarbach wrote:
| Anecdotal. You do not need to be a meteorologist to know
| when it's raining. Look outside. Everyone around you is
| vaccinated and they're getting infected.
| zackbloom wrote:
| There is very good data on this. Infection rates are
| roughly 5x higher, and death rates 13x higher, among the
| unvaccinated.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| Infection rate is orthogonal to preventing people from
| being infected. If you're not exposed, you can never be
| infected.
|
| It also depends how you define efficacy/effectiveness.
| Does it mean for each exposure, over a period of time,
| etc.
| MatthewMob wrote:
| So you are lying then. What do you gain out of misleading
| people with your rhetoric here?
| kadoban wrote:
| Making up numbers isn't a very good way to be convincing.
|
| Is that meteorologist bit supposed to be a reference to
| the Weather Underground?
| lottin wrote:
| Let me get this straight. First, you say the vaccine has
| been proven to be less than 10% effective. Now you're
| admitting that you've made it up, while at the same time
| insisting it's true. Astonishing.
| stavros wrote:
| English isn't my native language, but I thought "proven"
| wasn't a synonym for "I asked my friends".
| 6nf wrote:
| There's a well known tweet of Fauci saying 'all three
| vaccines are 100% effective'
| junon wrote:
| Link please.
| junon wrote:
| Show me a single claim they'd be 100% effective by an
| epidemiologist, please.
| jmarbach wrote:
| Are we really going to believe "90% effective" for the second
| time?
|
| "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice..."
| junon wrote:
| Yes.
| baka367 wrote:
| Cautiously hopeful that this does indeed work and that it does
| work for all variants...
|
| .. and that it also would not cost a fortune in 3rd world where
| we really need easily accessible and storable countermeasures
| against the bugger.
| jimmyearlcarter wrote:
| Ivermectin, Fluvoximine, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Zinc, Quercetin.
| All cheap and easily made available and shown to be effective
| at various stages of infection.
| https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-
| pl.... Plus we already know they are safe to use, no EUA
| required.
| xienze wrote:
| > and that it also would not cost a fortune in 3rd world
|
| Oh it won't, don't worry. Pfizer will make all their profit off
| it in the US.
| desine wrote:
| Specifically the US and eurozone taxpayers will pay Pfizer
| for the less wealthy countries. Oh well better than paying
| Lockheed and Raytheon for their democracy spreading
| bhaak wrote:
| I'm not sure the taxpayers will pay for that if you are
| unvaccinated.
|
| This pill is for "high-risk patients who took the antiviral
| within three days of symptom onset".
|
| The vaccination even seems to be a bit more effective than
| this pill?
| btmiller wrote:
| marklubi wrote:
| > The race to vaccinate enough people is frankly impossible
| considering how politically charged it became. Fucking
| Republicans.
|
| Please take your politically charged discourse elsewhere. This
| isn't the right place for mudslinging like this.
| atonse wrote:
| I do agree with the general sentiment of keeping politics out
| of it.
|
| But sadly there do seem to be some pretty strong correlations
| at a county level across the US. It could also be rural/urban
| cultural divides but the more obvious one is simply politics.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| There are a large number of blacks and young people who are
| not vaccinated. This is a bipartisan thing.
| joshu wrote:
| If the mud fits, they need to wear it. Tone policing like
| this is mostly for their benefit.
| mixedbit wrote:
| Unfortunately, the Pfizer pill needs to be taken early in the
| infection, so when patients may not be yet in the survival
| mode, but still in "it's just like a flu" mode.
| yosito wrote:
| > Fucking Republicans
|
| As a vaccinated, boosted republican, this attitude isn't
| helping. Yeah, there are a bunch of idiotic republican
| politicians out there. But there are also a lot of idiotic
| democrat politicians out there who aren't making COVID policy
| decisions based on science and evidence, but based on their
| ideological side: outdoor mask mandates, travel bans, blocking
| people's access to their own private property, etc. So no, not
| fucking republicans. Fucking tribalism. It's making humans act
| completely irrationally.
| desine wrote:
| The one that is a protease inhibitor but definitely not related
| to ivermectin the other protease inhibitor already available as a
| generic? The one that gets a fresh patent for increased profits?
| azinman2 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29249686
| ufo wrote:
| Ivermectin acts on glutamate chloride ion channels. It is not a
| protease inhibitor. And even if it were (which it is not),
| something that inhibits one protease doesn't work on other
| proteases. We can't use HIV protease inhibitors to fight covid,
| for example.
| desine wrote:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Ivermectin _works_ because it's an anti-parasitic. The standard
| of care for COVID includes steroids that allow parasites to
| multiply unchecked, killing patients. Ivermectin counters that.
|
| This was demonstrated by numerous studies showing reduced
| deaths -- all those successful studies were in places with a
| high endemic parasite load.
|
| In places with low levels of parasite infections, ivermectin
| basically does nothing.
|
| If you disagree, you'd have to show some combination of:
|
| #1 That Ivermectin is not an anti-parasitic
|
| #2 People don't have parasites.
|
| #3 Parasites don't kill you if you get given steroids.
|
| #4 There is a massive global conspiracy against this one
| specific drug, but only in developed countries that
| _coincidentally_ have low endemic parasite infections.
|
| Good luck! I look forward to your references to peer-reviewed,
| reproduced, double-blind studies upending decades of well
| established medical science.
| MaxMoney wrote:
| Natural Immunity is how effective?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| On first encounter, it doesn't yet exist.
|
| Same reason it might not be sensible to have sex unprotected
| with a syphilis patient.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-19 23:01 UTC)