Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsimionescu | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure about the monoclonal antibody treatments, but antivirals have much much worse side-effects than vaccinating the entire population, even if we did have one that worked on Covid-19 (which, unlike vaccines, we don't).

By and large, the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have probably been some of the most extraordinary accomplishments in medicine, with unthinkably low risks given the speed with which they were developed. We took a gamble, but the magnitude of evidence we now have that they are safe is incredible, they are up there with some of the most common OTC medicine.

Fortunately, the vaccines still seem to offer some protection to make sure that vaccinated people are less likely to have a severe form of Covid-19.

View on HN

Isn't Paxlovid an antiviral that works pretty well on Covid-19?

(I agree with the rest of what you say.)

I'm willing to believe the mRNA vaccines have "saved a lot of lives" but there is a study that I haven't yet seen and I'd like to see: compare the number of deaths per hundred thousand in 2022 between the vaccinated and unvaccinated broken down into ten year age groups. 2022 because it's the year that the omicron strain has dominated. My hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference below 60 and an advantage for the vaccinated above 60, but that's just my guess and I'd like to see this very simple study done.

Exactly the sort of analysis you're describing was done in Hong Kong this year: [0].

The results are clear: the rate of severe or fatal cases was many times higher for unvaccinated people in all age groups.

For people aged 20-59, three doses (of either mRNA or inactivated virus vaccines) reduced the chance of severe or fatal disease by nearly 99%. Efficacy actually drops with age: for >80-year-olds, there's only a 97% reduction in risk (though because the starting risk is much higher, they get a larger overall benefit).

This was with Omicron, by the way. In an unprotected population, Omicron is still very destructive.

0. "Vaccine effectiveness of one, two, and three doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac against COVID-19 in Hong Kong: a population-based observational study", The Lancet Infectious Diseases, July 2022: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00345-0

News from Christmas Eve (Dec 24), Google Translated:

  There were 39 new deaths in Hong Kong today, of which 
  37 died in public hospitals and 2 were reported by 
  public mortuaries. 

  There are 37 newly reported deaths of patients infected 
  with the new coronavirus, including 23 males and 14 
  females, aged between 50 and 104 years old. 

  Among the newly reported deceased patients, 14 were 
  from institutions. 

  As for vaccination, 5 had no injection information, 3 
  received 4 left injections, 25 received 3 left 
  injections, 2 received 2 left injections, and 2 
  received 1 left injection.

Source: 原文網址: 疫情｜增21,362宗確診三兒童情況危殆七日平均死亡人數突破40 | 香港01 https://www.hk01.com/article/850466

Of the 39 deceased, all of whom were 50+ and 14 of whom were care home residents, only 5 were unvaccinated, 3 had received 4 shots, and 33 of the 39 had received at least 2 shots. That matches or exceeds the vaccination rate for their age demographics.

Without knowing the rate of vaccination in the population (particularly in the elderly population), the data you gave means nothing. Just to illustrate the point, in a fully vaccinated population, every person who dies will be vaccinated.

I cited a study that does a rigorous statistical analysis.

See https://www.covidvaccine.gov.hk/en/dashboard Scroll to "Vaccine Doses Administered (Age Group)" Click on "Population with 2nd Vaccine Dose" (under "Metrics")

Yes, you've linked a study.

I've shared a typical daily report of covid-attributed deaths and the victims' levels of vaccination and, as I told you, the vaccination levels of those who die of covid are as high or higher than the rates for their age groups.

I'm sure it will be quite easy for you to find data points indicating vaccines are bad. The reason i will nonetheless simply disregard your conclusions and stick to what to me seems to be the scientific consensus is, that it is very hard to actually overcome biases (like motivated reasoning) and the scientific process is the best we have to overcome those.

In other words, please link a study. Or something else i can trust actually wants to get at the bottom of this, not win some argument.

In recent years, you may have noticed that the scientific consensus around covid, starting at the beginning with lab leak vs. "seafood market" and continuing on to the present moment, changes frequently and drastically. Sometimes accompanied by revelations of fraud and dishonesty on the part of trusted public servants and domain experts. Congratulations to you on staving off psychological whiplash amidst all of the consensus-flipping.

If your response to being shown government-announced covid deaths with details of the vaccination levels of the deceased (available on a daily basis from that and other news outlets) and, for comparison, age-bracketed vaccination levels reported by the same government is that you want to be shown a study, then I suspect what you truly want is reassurance or reaffirmation of your current set of beliefs rather than a grasp of what's currently going on.

Ofc consensus changes. Based on new data. That's how it is supposed to work.

> If your response to being shown government-announced covid deaths [..]

Well, that's what you are trying to promote. That you linked some raw data, not a conclusion-statement from this government, is all i need to know. I'm not calling you a liar. I just assume there to be another angle you might be missing (the motivated reasoning part), but this is something for experts in the respective area. And if not, it will change consensus accordingly. Unless, ofc, you believe in some grad conspiracy of all the governments all around the world. I don't.

I would also contend that it is necessary to check which vaccines are being administered. The different vaccines have different effectiveness.

Curiously they mostly stopped reporting on that this year.

Below 50's were never even close to high risk and as soon as it was known (which was very) the vaccines didn't prevent spread they should have immediately been halted for all low risk age groups.

Did you try googling?

The chance of death is low for those up to 50. But vaccines even further reduce that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scientificamerican.com/arti...

Here's another one with a bit more of a specific breakdown

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Ooh yes, googling, the way to get the true and correct data first time, every time.

Unfortunately at this point there is no way to see if the vaccines have actually saved lives because a) they don't stop the virus or its spread, it is not confirmed that the vaccines haven't caused significantly more covid infections by being leaky (look up 'Leaky Vaccines,'[1] or OAS (original antigenic sin)) and they have encouraged high risk behaviour in the false belief the vaccines provide sufficient protection. I mean I don't even see any ads or posters around any more advising on hygiene improvements like not shaking hands, getting out in the sun, eating healthily, look after the weak and elderly, etc. People just take the vaccine as their safety blanket and worse, are signing their kids up for it when they were never a risk vector (until mid-covid the 'science' changed on that).

If you can point me to a study that conclusively shows vaccines absolutely saved lives over the longer term (that aren't based on models full of positive assumptions on efficacy and effectiveness), I'm happy to read it.

[1] example: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/theres-something-antigeni...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com