by helloworld on 2/22/25, 1:05 AM with 84 comments
by energy123 on 2/22/25, 2:28 AM
by francisofascii on 2/22/25, 1:52 AM
by gp on 2/22/25, 2:56 AM
Derek doesn't have to take Paxlovid next time, but I will.
by herf on 2/22/25, 3:17 AM
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309003
I was surprised to read it.
by mark_l_watson on 2/22/25, 1:58 PM
I really think treating Covid for older people is a very different than treating young people.
That said, when I took PAXLOVID my daughter, son in law and grandson had the same Covid strain I did at the same time and their symptoms were very bad and lasted ten days to over two weeks.
by ecocentrik on 2/22/25, 2:52 AM
by moshegramovsky on 2/22/25, 2:04 AM
by cameldrv on 2/22/25, 7:05 AM
Anyhow I got the first dose at about 6pm and went to sleep, and when I woke up I felt pretty good and went down to my office to start catching up on my email. It was an amazing turnaround.
by merb on 2/22/25, 5:04 PM
by evnc on 2/22/25, 1:45 AM
n=1 here, though I've heard others say the same -- but I (fairly healthy 30s male, vaccinated) found Paxlovid massively reduced symptom intensity for me. Within a day my symptoms went from "top 5 fevers I've ever experienced, normal function significantly impaired" to "feels like a cold; can reasonably handle myself around the house and even take a software engineering interview".
I most likely would not have got a severe infection and probably would not have got Long Covid, given my age / health / vaccine status, even if I hadn't taken it; but nonetheless I'm glad I was able to get it. Definitely worth it for the weird taste (hard candy helps).
by jibe on 2/22/25, 1:47 AM
by stonogo on 2/22/25, 1:49 AM
by shusaku on 2/22/25, 2:17 AM
by talkingtab on 2/22/25, 2:41 AM
I was vaccinated, got COVID. At no point were my symptoms serious. Because of age and past heart issues I was given paxlovid. Two weeks after the paxlovid (or something like that) I became sick again, more seriously. With COVID. The symptoms I experienced were much worse but not life threatening and I recovered fully. However, it was odd that the COVID came roaring back. My conjecture is that the paxlovid suppressed COVID, but that caused my body to falter in terms of building immunity. So when the paxlovid wore off, I was actually worse off. In the same situation I would NOT take the paxlovid again unless it was clear I had serious symptoms - like I was going to end up hospitialized. I acknowledge there is no science here, but on the other hand none of the doctors were able to suggest why I had a second episode so quickly and why it was more severe.
My conclusion is that there was a lot of guessing, placebo, reassuring, best guessing going on. I think that is the take away if we face such a thing again.
by ChrisArchitect on 2/22/25, 3:30 AM
by thenerdhead on 2/22/25, 3:18 AM
A responsible science reporter should present the full body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from a single study.
Currently, a 900-person study is exploring Paxlovid’s potential for three clusters of Long COVID patients using a novel ultra-sensitive single-molecule assay. While many question its effectiveness in short treatment durations, there is reason to believe it could have extended benefits, similar to treatments for hepatitis C or feline coronavirus infections.
Having read and shared thousands of studies on SARS-CoV-2 and Long COVID, I find it irresponsible to dismiss a drug based on a single study, especially when broader research suggests that access to antivirals may reduce the risk of developing Long COVID, even among vaccinated individuals.
New antivirals are awaiting FDA approval, and an updated version of Paxlovid is in development. Derek’s analysis is not only misleading but also incorrect, and it would be best if he reconsidered the reach of his words.
by temporallobe on 2/22/25, 3:03 AM
by credit_guy on 2/23/25, 9:30 PM
The (currently) first comment on his site is right on point:
> I don’t really see what point this article is trying to make. I’m 65. Vaxxed for covid to the max. Finally got covid. Before I had much in the way of symptoms I took Paxlovid for 5 days. Covid symptoms stopped. Tested clear of Covid after 5 days. Then I had rebound Covid for about a week but it was mild. If I ever get Covid again I’ll take paxlovid again. I don’t care what anyone else thinks.
Here are some reasons the article is weak.1. I'll start with my own anecdote. I got the initial 2 shots of Moderna and later the booster when it became available. Still, I contracted Covid in early 2022 and it was not very fun. Then I contracted Covid in early 2024 and I got Paxlovid this time, and it was a breeze.
2. The mechanism of action of Paxlovid is different from the mechanism of action of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines (I guess other vaccines as well). The vaccines train the body to recognize the spike protein of the virus, while Paxlovid attacks a protease (called M-pro) that plays some role in the virus's replication cycle. As the Covid virus mutates and the vaccines bases on the older strains become less effective, the added benefit of a drug with a different mechanism of action increases. Note that I said the added benefit, not the absolute benefit, which could very well decrease too. So, a study based on observations between April and October 2022 is likely to understate the benefit of Paxlovid today (for the vaccinated people).
3. Derek does not mention if the study was powerful enough. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Since this was an observational study based on an existing cohort, the observers did not have a chance to do design the experiment to ensure enough statistical power. The conclusion that Derek draws is based on multiple indirect comparisons, and in all of them Derek treats statistical insignificance as equality.
4. Derek talks about long term effects. In my own anecdote, I did suffer from hearing loss for many months after my Covid episode with no Paxlovid. Nothing close to getting me to a hospital. But very annoying. Absolutely no Covid short or long term effects when I took Paxlovid.
5. This statement "if a drug's not doing you any good then you really shouldn't take it at all" is a big error. Derek jumped from "we have no evidence that the drug is good" to "the drug is doing you no good". Boom. Blink and you don't see it.
by reify on 2/22/25, 2:48 AM
Fuck me! Only for rich muppets then?
In my local Boots chemist Aspirin is about £2.00 for 28 tablets.
Paxlovid is a combination of 2 medicines called nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir stops the virus from growing and spreading, and ritonavir helps nirmatrelvir from being broken down in your body long enough to do its job.
Fuck me! again.
by tehjoker on 2/22/25, 3:21 AM
by TwoNineFive on 2/22/25, 10:59 PM
by readthenotes1 on 2/22/25, 2:42 AM
I find it wholly consistent with the entire "Have Faith in Science" trend of the COVID years for someone to say something like this.
I think it very likely that we don't know and shouldn't assume.