10 ms·
Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kuu 6y agoIf I'm not wrong, UK is only giving the first dose for now. I feel glad and relieve that with only one dose it is working. There seems to be a light at the end of this tunnel :)
- simonbarker87 6y agoI think you are wrong, all my relatives who have had theres have had two or know when their next one is I belive
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Zariel 6y agoCheck the data yourself, https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations Most people I know who have a vaccine have had 2 doses
- Balero 6y agoOP is correct, the link you've posted shows that around 600,000 have had 2 doses, and over 15 million have had 1. The UK is pushing to get all 'at risk' people one dose (around 49% of people getting the vaccine) as a priority, with the second dose following within 12 weeks.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThat's 600,000 times OP is incorrect.
- advanced-DnD 6y agoOr OP is 3.5% incorrect.
- kuu 6y agoOP here, I was partially incorrect, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26226801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26226801
- ageitgey 6y agoThe UK is giving both doses. It's just that they are spacing them out at 12 weeks instead of 3-4 weeks. The idea is that this gives more at-risk people substantial protection more quickly.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The UK is giving both doses. It's just that they are spacing them out at 12 weeks instead of 3-4 weeks. Are they doing that for all vaccines, or just the Oxford/AstraZeneca one? Because that appears to be the recommended and most effective interval for the Oxford vaccine, but not for the others. (Note that the mix of vaccines approved for use differs considerably from country to country; Oxford/AstraZeneca is not in use on the US, only Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech.
- nicoburns 6y agoThey're doing it for both Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer, which are the two approved vaccines in the UK at the moment.
- mprovost 6y agoModerna is also approved, although there doesn't seem to be much supply. Novavax should also be approved within the next few weeks.
- dan-robertson 6y agoThere’s not really much data on what the most effective interval is, though I think some data might come out of Israel and the NHS will probably try to conduct some randomised controlled trials. The choices made in the phase 3 clinical trials were driven by trying to pick a sufficiently large dose that the trial would succeed and as short an interval as reasonable to make the trials take less time. For other vaccines, larger intervals have been more effective. Given how unwilling politicians were to speed up rollout, I think aiming for maximum efficacy with minimum trial latency was the best decision the drug companies could have made.
- ahmedshaikh 6y agoWhat about those things Michael Yeadon & Dr Sucharit Bhakdi said about the vaccines being useless. Are they just dumbfuck chodes ?
- EliRivers 6y agoTough break here for Betteridge's law :/
- swayvil 6y agoHe got censored. What do you call censorship when you don't trust the censor? Entropy? Noise?
- InitialLastName 6y agoDefinitely censorship, and not moderating someone making unfounded, uncited, and crudely insulting allegations.
- swayvil 6y agoSeeing as how he got censored, we don't know that.
- InitialLastName 6y agoThey got flagged by users. We can still see what they wrote, see that it effectively willfully provided negative value to the conversation, and move on without it having to be a global conspiracy.
- swayvil 6y agoYour faith in the moderators, and your willingness to swallow what's wagged in your face, is greater than mine.
- tus89 6y agoMore interesting to know does it lead to a significant drop in transmission?
- roywiggins 6y agoProbably. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va...
- NovaJehovah 6y agoWhy is that more interesting? Reducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission, if not more important. If we could sufficiently reduce (or eliminate) severe cases and deaths, it wouldn't matter how contagious it was. Common colds are highly transmissible, but no one worries about them much since they very rarely cause severe illness.
- matthewmacleod 6y agoReducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission. I know what you're driving at and it's all pretty interesting - but counterintuitively I think it's way more effective overall to reduce transmission than it is to reduce severity. If you make the disease half as deadly, then pretty simply half as many people die. But if you make the disease half as transmissible, then the compound impact means that far fewer than half as many people die.
- NovaJehovah 6y agoTrue. But if you make the disease not deadly at all, then no one dies, regardless of how transmissible it is.
- srean 6y agoUntill you visit a place with a significant un-vaccinated population. This has happened with other diseases.
- kop316 6y ago"By the fourth week after receiving the initial dose, the Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were shown to reduce the risk of hospitalisation from Covid-19 by up to 85 per cent and 94 per cent, respectively. Among those aged 80 years and over - one of the highest risk groups - vaccination was associated with an 81 per cent reduction in hospitalisation risk in the fourth week, when the results for both vaccines were combined." I wanted to highlight this part for folks reading. My brothers Mother in Law is now hospitalized due to COVID, and there is a high likelyhood that she will not survive COVID due to lung scarring. She got her first COVID vaccination about a week before she got COVID. You are not out of the woods just because you got your first dose COVID vaccine! It will take time for it to take affect.
- StavrosK 6y agoThe AZ vaccine is more effective than the BioNTech one? That's extremely interesting.
- ageitgey 6y agoI wouldn't read too much into that small difference. This study wasn't really designed to show which one works better. The bigger takeaway is that both show significant protection even with just one dose (which presumably rises after the second dose).
- sgt101 6y agoAgree. I can't find the right information but I suspect that the headline figures from the different vaccine trials may be generated by somewhat different counting methodologies. I think that some of the trials counted from day 1 of the vaccination, and some of them from day 15 - but I am hoping that someone has the actual information!
- turbonaut 6y agoThe vaccines have also been delivered in slightly different contexts that may relate to risk of hospitalisation. Pfizer, for example, often administered in hospitals due to the freezer requirement. You could imagine the risk of hospitalisation of an 80 year old who frequents hospitals and one who doesn’t is different.
- JCM9 6y agoData is very encouraging. Presently this battle is essentially a race between the current vaccines (which data indicates are very effective against current strains) and eventual variants that will make the current vaccines less effective (or in the worst case ineffective). The mutations aren’t really a question of if just when. Vaccine data on some new strains is concerning and potentially an early warning of things to come. If we can get shots in everyone’s arms and maintain masks etc before any vaccine-resistant strains can develop then we stand a good chance of getting back to normalcy. If the virus mutates faster or people let their guard down too soon (including vaccinated individuals) then we could have a big setback. It’s important that even vaccinated people follow protocols for now since if a vaccine-resistant variant does get out there we need to make sure it doesn’t spread. Get vaccinated (when it’s your turn) and wear those masks!
- rcpt 6y agothere's no race. If this virus can mutate into something that renders the vaccine ineffective it will. Brazil and Mexico and the rest of the developing world will give it ample opportunity no matter how quickly we roll out the current drugs. It took decades to hunt down smallpox.
- jjcon 6y agoIsn’t it almost certainly the case that the ‘unstoppable’ thing it turns in to will basically be more akin to a general cold though? The thing that makes this virus deadly is also the thing we are coding against in the vaccine.
- ufo 6y agoNot necessarily. For example, some of the more recent SARS-CoV-2 variants spread more easily because the virus causes a more severe infection, which is transmissable for a longer period of time. It's also not a guarantee that the virus will evolve into something weaker. There are serious diseases like measles and smallpox that have circulated for thousands of years while remaining as deadly as they ever were. Sometimes, the disease not being as deadly after a while can be a result of natural selection selecting for more resistant individuals (after many deaths), not of natural selection selecting for less deadly pathogens.
- loveistheanswer 6y agoUntil we have challenge trials, how do we know whether or not other variables, such as natural herd immunity and seasonality are not also significant contributing factors to the 'substantial reduction'?
- learc83 6y agoYou have a control group of unvaccinated people.
- ssully 6y agoThese people are starting to get vaccinated now though[1], which actually causes issues with the study. [1]:https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430...
- ceejayoz 6y agoThat's the clinical trials, but it should be reasonably straightforward to do observational studies on COVID hospitalizations cross-referenced with vaccine status. There are plenty of millions of people who haven't yet (or won't ever) get vaccinated to serve as a control.
- Guest19023892 6y agoThe numbers from Israel seem to show the 60+ age group that has been vaccinated with two doses is seeing a sharp drop in hospital admissions compared to the under 60 group that is still mostly unvaccinated. This should rule out the herd immunity and seasonality arguments. https://i.imgur.com/Tu3ckZN.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Tu3ckZN.jpg https://i.imgur.com/1eP5sbi.jpg https://i.imgur.com/1eP5sbi.jpg
- paganel 6y agoI would have expected even lower hospital admission numbers for the 60+ population, I mean taking into consideration that almost 80% of them have already been vaccinated.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- robertofmoria 6y agoThis just in! Covid19 not serious. Treatment already exists and was known. Reaction to covid19 worse than the disease.
- LeCow 6y agoman I hate Scotland and the witch so much.
- jorgeleo 6y ago<sarcasm> In other news, it turns out that the earth IS round (mostly) </sarcasm>
- mchusma 6y agoThe UKs adoption of First Dose First is amazing and inspiring in a time when governments worldwide seem unable to operate effectively. There are 2 things every country can do to save lives that have effectively zero cost and zero negative externalities: - lifting lingering vaccine bans (the US's ban of AZ is most glaring) - first dose first - the evidence is overwhelming at this point. These two things, which could be done almost certainly by Biden alone (in the US), would allow possibly everyone who wants a vaccine to get one by the end of March, instead of July with the current projections. And this decision is effectively zero risk.
- bpodgursky 6y agoThe other almost-certain win would be half-doses of the mRNA vaccines (ie, double supply) given the antibody responses we saw with lower doses, but that's probably asking for too much...
- prox 6y agoWhat is first dose first?
- jedberg 6y agoThe UK's policy of making sure everyone gets their first dose of the two dose vaccines before most everyone gets their second, setting the second dose at 3 months instead of 3-4 weeks.
- ytwySXpMbS 6y agoThis isn’t quite right. The UK has delayed second doses to 3 months after the first dose to enable more people to get their first dose quicker. The plan is all adults vaccinated by September, and they certainly aren’t delaying second doses until then.
- timthorn 6y agoThat's been brought in - all adults are now expected to be offered their first dose by 21 July.
- drummer 6y ago> Roll-out of the first vaccine dose now needs to be accelerated globally to help overcome this terrible disease. In a publication in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents titled “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data” (March 19th 2020), the researchers indicate that “there does not seem to be a significant difference between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries and that of common coronaviruses”. Furthermore, according to their analysis, “SARS-CoV-2 infection cannot be described as being statistically more severe than infection with other coronaviruses in common circulation. […] Finally, in OECD countries, SARS-CoV-2 does not seem to be deadlier than other circulating viruses.”
- DenisM 6y agoWell, that's a year old now, isn't it? And the negative impact of the virus consists of both mortality and virality.
- drummer 6y agoData still shows the same. IFR is comparable to mild flu. 98% of people show no to mild symptoms. Virus is overhyped.
- ashtonbaker 6y agoAgain, both IFR and transmissibility matter when we're discussing the severity of a disease. You're only talking about IFR.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y agoHow many lives were saved by delivering the vaccine in 1 year vs. 2?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- aclimatt 6y agoSince we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-high risk of hospitalization? (Determination of risk however you'd like to do it.) Put another way, you wouldn't shut the world down if a bunch of people got sick for a few days. You may, and indeed we have, shut it down if a large part of the population were at risk of hospitalization or death. In many developed countries, that population is looking at full inoculation (for those who want it) sometime this spring. Should that not be the "end" of it?
- vmchale 6y ago> hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? From a control theory perspective, it's one of the worst measures because it's delayed. Much more efficient to measure cases - then you don't need restricted social life as long.
- inglor_cz 6y agoIn the wild phase of the pandemic, yes. But once enough people are vaccinated, the pattern may change. For example, you may still catch quite a lot of cases through PCR testing which is very sensitive, but the share of asymptomatic cases will be much higher and the share of people who are going to suffer a severe case much smaller. The entire societal signature of the disease will change depending on vaccination levels and maybe even particular vaccines used.
- teawrecks 6y agoThe point isn't that we use hospital admissions as a metric to infer cases or some other metric, it IS the metric that matters. The problem over the last year wasn't that there exists a person who is at risk, it's that there didn't exist any healthcare system capacity to treat them. From very early on in the pandemic, it seemed to me like our goal for optimal balance between caution/risk was to try and maintain the highest level of hospital occupancy that is sustainable. If every single person quarantines perfectly, then our hospitals are empty, but so is every business. If no one quarantines, our businesses are full, but so are hospitals and everyone's viral load; i.e. maximum mortality. With the vaccines now available, it seems like our goal should still be be to maintain the highest level of sustainable medical system occupancy.
- wcfields 6y agoI may get downvoted for this, but genuinely curious if there's vaccine tourism (not that I'm in a position to get on a jet to get a shot). Eg, if the wait time is long for my group in the US/UK/Wherever, can I book a flight to UAE or Cuba to get a vaccine at the airport?
- sjf 6y agoSure, you think the 0.1% are just waiting for their phase to rollout?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kaybe 6y agoI have to say though, if we were actually making them pay hard for that, I'd be ok with it ethically. You want to skip the line? Sure, that's 2 million+! Then give the money to the one that has to wait instead, but make sure not to allow a free market here to drive that price down. Just thinking.. there surely is an issue somewhere..
- cogman10 6y agoI don't think so. There's simply not excess vaccines to go around at this point. I imagine this might happen more in the future when a larger percentage of some nations are vaccinated.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> There's simply not excess vaccines to go around at this point. I'm sure there are creative people out there who'll, say, put you on the staff list at a dentist's office so you're technically a "first responder". For a price, of course.
- unix_fan 6y agoDefinitely. A few famous people in Latin America were flying to Miami to get vaccinated, despite not living in Florida.
- chrisjs95 6y agoI'm really worried that will be "locked down" indefinite even when hospitalizations go down. I'm also worried that when an actually deadly virus hits our shores we'll be more hesitate to do lockdowns. So basically governments used their once in a 50 year lockdown on this. It mainly killed people that were fat (why the US had a higher mortality) and old. Except no one every said lose weight, exercise and get fresh air. What happens when Ebola hits us.
- ImaCake 6y agoWhen something with ~30-50% mortality starts doing a COVID there won't be room for anti-vaxxers and anti-lockdown people. With COVID you can get sick and live. With something like ebola you get sick and die, or you go through the most traumatic event of your life. It doesn't leave a middle ground of disbelief. So I think there would be the political will for a second lockdown if our next global pandemic looks like ebola. A second COVID probably might not be scary enough though.
- erfgh 6y agoEbola does not spread as easily as COVID so a lockdown would not be needed.
- ptaipale 6y agoEbola has spread quite quickly, and there have been lockdowns to stop it.
- ImaCake 6y agoEbola infected ~28,000 people in a few African nations over the course of a few years. Knowning now just how flawed testing is for COVID in developed countries it is easy to imagine this number is understated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_African_Ebola_virus_ep...
- malandrew 6y agoThinking more about headlines like this, I wish we could just replace the word "linked" with the words "correlates with" Society really needs to use either the term correlation or causation more often so we can always have the "correlation does not imply causation" discussion and hammer that home until it's common knowledge and common sense. The word "link" to me is a weasel word meant to plant the thought "causation" when only correlation is merited.
- guilhas 6y agoCases are going down worldwide, numbers of vaccinated are too low to be relevant and second dose even lower. Also when vaccination started, we can clearly see a spike in deaths. Are those "linked"? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273943/Why-Covid-retreat-world-Global-cases-fell-16-week.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273943/Why-Covid-r...
- wayanon 6y agoWe are so lucky we had 2020 science to deal with this rather than in previous decades. I wonder how our current efforts will seem to scientists from decades in the future!
- goldforever 6y agoYes, because most died before they could even be admitted.