5 ms·

Genuine question: is it necessary to get vaxxed if - all else held the same - the cost is not significantly higher for the antiviral? Wouldn't that cut the risk

Genuine question: is it necessary to get vaxxed if - all else held the same - the cost is not significantly higher for the antiviral? Wouldn't that cut the risk down so significantly that we can safely say, "Vaccinate if you're at-risk for your own protection, and have negligible risk otherwise"? This changes the entire risk calculation.

Jarmsy 5y ago
I guess even if that were the case, there'd still be the increased risk of catching and passing it to vulnerable people with reduced immunity.
cossatot 5y ago
Vaccination is in large part about beating the epidemic, i.e. the population-scale prevalence of the pathogen, by preventing most of the infections and therefore disease transmission. This pill is about treating disease symptoms, but while doing nothing to limit disease spread. So while on a personal level, there may not be dramatic differences in death rates etc., on a population level the differences are huge.
- orangepurple 5y ago
  Incorrect, mRNA COVID vaccination is about reducing symptoms in infected patients. It does absolutely nothing to slow down or stop the spread of COVID.
  - thinkcontext 5y ago
    This is one of the most persistent pieces of misinformation I've seen, especially in the face of clear data. The reduction in transmission rate for the vaccinated is 89%. Even for someone with a breakthrough infection of the more contagious Delta variant being vaccinated means a 63% reduction. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - orangepurple 5y ago
      You are correct, it seems, if this trial is done correctly. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v...
    - Izkata 5y ago
      It's become reflexive whenever people claim it stops transmission because all evidence for it is very very recent, while the claim of stopping transmission started to be used with authority as early as Feb 2021 with absolutely no evidence. Not even Pfizer's press release in 2020 tried to claim they even researched it, let alone had a conclusion, despite people nowadays claiming otherwise.
Nextgrid 5y ago
If your reason to not get the vaccine is to avoid yet-to-be-discovered side effects, wouldn't that apply to this drug as well though? Not to mention that the vaccines now have a year-long track record of safety despite widespread adoption, where as this one has yet to be deployed on such a large scale. Also, the vaccines work on a principle that's somewhat well understood, accepted and deemed safe: training the immune system by giving it something that looks like the virus so it can learn. The only novel part is how this "something that looks like the virus" is created (mRNA as opposed to weakened but real virus). On the other hand this new molecule has a totally different mechanism of action and the potential for side effects may be higher.
sabujp 5y ago
yes vaccination 300% (i.e. single, second, and third booster dose when ready!) Drugs that have anti-biologic properties are never good for your body, neither is allowing symptoms to fully manifest before taking drugs. People should still get the vaccines. The drugs are a backup in case the virus still overwhelms your immune system or causes it to overreact.
Steltek 5y ago
I'm guessing you only get this pill if you're hospitalized with severe symptoms. In which case, you're still occupying hospital beds/resources, which is the main remaining threat to rational society.
- mherdeg 5y ago
  > which is the main remaining threat to rational society What is a "rational society" and what threatens it? My default view is Rawlsian: I'd like to live in a society which maximizes the well-being of the least well-off people, even if that's not currently me. In that framework one threat from a pandemic is that some at-risk people might die (people with some health conditions will die when infected and may not respond well to vaccination); that threat can be mitigated if people develop treatments, apply nonpharmaceutical interventions like indoor masking, and participate in community inoculation. There are other very different notions of a "rational society". In some, the premature death of people who are elderly, medically at-risk, or choose to avoid vaccination might be preferred outcomes. Hmmm.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  It was to prevent hospitalization.
aneutron 5y ago
In my untrained eyes (from an edipemological point of view), it depends on many things. It's a slippery slope anyway ... But I sort of view it from a "practical ethics" point of view if you will .... First thing I noticed is these result actually select people who had the antiviral administered to them within 3 days of the symptoms appearing. I have personally known people who unfortunately died in a week tops after contracting the virus (they had pre-existing conditions, namely hypertension and diabetes). Which brings me to my next point: Suppose the antiviral exists and is viable to even beyond 85%. How much will it cost ? I'm not a US citizen, but I'm thinking insurances will rush to trying not to cover anyone who's not vaccinated or some shady shit because they always do. And how about 3rd world countries like the one I come from. We can't even get RNA vaccines, let alone an experimental drug like this. And now my final and target point: Suppose you don't want to get the vaccine and you can afford the drug. We do have proof that even if the vaccine doesn't protect you from the virus completely, even in the unfortunate case where you do contract it, you'll end up infecting less people. Now if you choose to not get vaccinated, then you really do risk potentially contaminating more people that will either have no access to the antiviral within a reasonable effective timeframe(and that maybe not vaccinated either) or just plain infecting more people overall. Not the cleanest reasoning, and not a mathematical proof by any means, but I believe it's one of those "mathematical" problems where the proof is finding an edge case (sorry studied in french, really don't know how they say it in english).

Jarmsy 5y ago

I guess even if that were the case, there'd still be the increased risk of catching and passing it to vulnerable people with reduced immunity.

cossatot 5y ago

Vaccination is in large part about beating the epidemic, i.e. the population-scale prevalence of the pathogen, by preventing most of the infections and therefore disease transmission. This pill is about treating disease symptoms, but while doing nothing to limit disease spread. So while on a personal level, there may not be dramatic differences in death rates etc., on a population level the differences are huge.

orangepurple 5y ago
Incorrect, mRNA COVID vaccination is about reducing symptoms in infected patients. It does absolutely nothing to slow down or stop the spread of COVID.
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  This is one of the most persistent pieces of misinformation I've seen, especially in the face of clear data. The reduction in transmission rate for the vaccinated is 89%. Even for someone with a breakthrough infection of the more contagious Delta variant being vaccinated means a 63% reduction. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - orangepurple 5y ago
    You are correct, it seems, if this trial is done correctly. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v...
  - Izkata 5y ago
    It's become reflexive whenever people claim it stops transmission because all evidence for it is very very recent, while the claim of stopping transmission started to be used with authority as early as Feb 2021 with absolutely no evidence. Not even Pfizer's press release in 2020 tried to claim they even researched it, let alone had a conclusion, despite people nowadays claiming otherwise.

Nextgrid 5y ago

If your reason to not get the vaccine is to avoid yet-to-be-discovered side effects, wouldn't that apply to this drug as well though? Not to mention that the vaccines now have a year-long track record of safety despite widespread adoption, where as this one has yet to be deployed on such a large scale. Also, the vaccines work on a principle that's somewhat well understood, accepted and deemed safe: training the immune system by giving it something that looks like the virus so it can learn. The only novel part is how this "something that looks like the virus" is created (mRNA as opposed to weakened but real virus). On the other hand this new molecule has a totally different mechanism of action and the potential for side effects may be higher.

sabujp 5y ago

yes vaccination 300% (i.e. single, second, and third booster dose when ready!) Drugs that have anti-biologic properties are never good for your body, neither is allowing symptoms to fully manifest before taking drugs. People should still get the vaccines. The drugs are a backup in case the virus still overwhelms your immune system or causes it to overreact.

Steltek 5y ago

I'm guessing you only get this pill if you're hospitalized with severe symptoms. In which case, you're still occupying hospital beds/resources, which is the main remaining threat to rational society.

mherdeg 5y ago
> which is the main remaining threat to rational society What is a "rational society" and what threatens it? My default view is Rawlsian: I'd like to live in a society which maximizes the well-being of the least well-off people, even if that's not currently me. In that framework one threat from a pandemic is that some at-risk people might die (people with some health conditions will die when infected and may not respond well to vaccination); that threat can be mitigated if people develop treatments, apply nonpharmaceutical interventions like indoor masking, and participate in community inoculation. There are other very different notions of a "rational society". In some, the premature death of people who are elderly, medically at-risk, or choose to avoid vaccination might be preferred outcomes. Hmmm.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
It was to prevent hospitalization.

aneutron 5y ago

In my untrained eyes (from an edipemological point of view), it depends on many things. It's a slippery slope anyway ... But I sort of view it from a "practical ethics" point of view if you will .... First thing I noticed is these result actually select people who had the antiviral administered to them within 3 days of the symptoms appearing. I have personally known people who unfortunately died in a week tops after contracting the virus (they had pre-existing conditions, namely hypertension and diabetes). Which brings me to my next point: Suppose the antiviral exists and is viable to even beyond 85%. How much will it cost ? I'm not a US citizen, but I'm thinking insurances will rush to trying not to cover anyone who's not vaccinated or some shady shit because they always do. And how about 3rd world countries like the one I come from. We can't even get RNA vaccines, let alone an experimental drug like this. And now my final and target point: Suppose you don't want to get the vaccine and you can afford the drug. We do have proof that even if the vaccine doesn't protect you from the virus completely, even in the unfortunate case where you do contract it, you'll end up infecting less people. Now if you choose to not get vaccinated, then you really do risk potentially contaminating more people that will either have no access to the antiviral within a reasonable effective timeframe(and that maybe not vaccinated either) or just plain infecting more people overall. Not the cleanest reasoning, and not a mathematical proof by any means, but I believe it's one of those "mathematical" problems where the proof is finding an edge case (sorry studied in french, really don't know how they say it in english).