Coronavirus treatment options and the impact on public policy

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
A dog returns to his own vomit.
Here good enough fur ya foggy? Optimistic title though...


Results from the remdesivir COVID-19 trial are out, and it’s good news
Recovery time was shortened from 15 to 11 days.

On Friday, some good news in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The antiviral drug remdesivir—originally developed as a potential treatment for Ebola—was shown to shorten recovery time for patients infected with the coronavirus. In late April, early results from this phase 3 clinical trial suggested that remdesivir might be of value in treating COVID-19 patients—this new paper confirms that. It's not a cure, but the drug shortened the recovery time from an average of 15 days to 11 days.

The trial involved 1,059 COVID-19 patients across 60 different sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Five hundred and thirty-eight patients were treated with a 10-day course of remdesivir; the other 521 patients were given a course of placebo on the same schedule. The patients were assessed daily, both to determine the severity of their symptoms as well as any side effects that could be caused by the drug, which interferes with the the virus' ability to copy its RNA.
more...
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
COVID: What Happens If We Never Discover a Vaccine? - TLDR News

We're all locked inside at the moment because we're concerned about the spread of the Coronavirus, and it looks like we're going to have to stay where we are until the situation changes. One way this could happen is through the development of a vaccine. So in this video we're going to discuss what happens if that doesn't happen. What if we never find a vaccine? Are we stuck inside forever or does something else happen?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Here good enough fur ya foggy? Optimistic title though...


Results from the remdesivir COVID-19 trial are out, and it’s good news
Recovery time was shortened from 15 to 11 days.

On Friday, some good news in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The antiviral drug remdesivir—originally developed as a potential treatment for Ebola—was shown to shorten recovery time for patients infected with the coronavirus. In late April, early results from this phase 3 clinical trial suggested that remdesivir might be of value in treating COVID-19 patients—this new paper confirms that. It's not a cure, but the drug shortened the recovery time from an average of 15 days to 11 days.

The trial involved 1,059 COVID-19 patients across 60 different sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Five hundred and thirty-eight patients were treated with a 10-day course of remdesivir; the other 521 patients were given a course of placebo on the same schedule. The patients were assessed daily, both to determine the severity of their symptoms as well as any side effects that could be caused by the drug, which interferes with the the virus' ability to copy its RNA.
more...
Actually, the Remdesvir news is realistic and well done. It seems that Trump must not like Gilead Sciences. That he isn't touting Remdesvir means the fake science types who lick his spittle aren't interfering with reporting. Also means you won't be directed through Google to lickspittle "doctors" who give Trump's fantasies a fake authentic look. I'm sorry for your sake that I can't work up a complaint about real medical news.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
The rest was unnecessary and poorly motivated, it demonstrates my point about motives and emotions.
Given how often you've been wrong, you perhaps should start listening to people with a better track record than yourself.

I concede that you are well trained in mediation and mindfulness. Better than I am. You should stick to that. Also post your sciency stuff where it is not given political context. How hard would it be to do that?
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Given how often you've been wrong, you perhaps should start listening to people with a better track record than yourself.

I concede that you are well trained in mediation and mindfulness. Better than I am. You should stick to that. Also post your sciency stuff where it is not given political context. How hard would it be to do that?
Sciencey stuff is central to public policy (politics) Covid -19 IS the news, practically the only news, the death count has already been staggering all aspects of this are up for debate by members. Unlike normal times scientific policy and political interference in it is central to the current public debate. Feel fee to comment on the posts, but stick to the facts and your opinion of them, leave your personal issues out of it and be civil at least.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
New England Journal of medicine, expert opinion and information on research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to Discover Antiviral Drugs Quickly
List of authors.
  • Jerry M. Parks, Ph.D.,
  • and Jeremy C. Smith, Ph.D.
nejmcibr2007042_f1.jpeg

We urgently need effective drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but what is the quickest way to find them? One approach that sometimes seems akin to a “Hail Mary” pass in American football is to hope that drugs that have worked against a different virus (such as hepatitis C or Ebola) will also work against Covid-19. Alternatively, we can be rational and specifically target proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) so as to interrupt its life cycle.
more...
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
New England Journal of medicine, expert opinion and information on research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to Discover Antiviral Drugs Quickly
List of authors.
  • Jerry M. Parks, Ph.D.,
  • and Jeremy C. Smith, Ph.D.
View attachment 4576329

We urgently need effective drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but what is the quickest way to find them? One approach that sometimes seems akin to a “Hail Mary” pass in American football is to hope that drugs that have worked against a different virus (such as hepatitis C or Ebola) will also work against Covid-19. Alternatively, we can be rational and specifically target proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) so as to interrupt its life cycle.
more...
I know, I know, bbbut nejm. Ssssscience!!!

More silly science. Not that the article is false, it's just misleading. Lots of earlier stuff like this can be found. Flying cars. Magneto-optical drives, nano-machines, time travel (just kidding), geo-engineering, mechanical hearts, colonies in space and now this, designer vaccines.

We may urgently need it. Our needs are irrelevant in this regard. This necessary effort is one of inventing of something new. The tech being used is experimental. The fact is that testing will take a long time and the results are far from certain. As the head of Merk said during an announcement that the company is investing in coronavirus vaccine research:

Merck chief executive Ken Frazier has cast doubt on the 12 to 18-month timeframe to develop an effective coronavirus vaccine, describing the widely mooted schedule as “very aggressive”.

"You want to make sure that when you put a vaccine into millions if not billions of people, it is safe," Frazier told the Financial Times, adding that his company's "experience suggests those are very aggressive [targets] compared to other timelines for getting a safe and effective vaccine."


Full article can be found here:


warning: paywall, which is why I supplied the earlier link that quoted and cited it.

If one compares the Merk executive's statement "very aggressive" to a magic 8-ball, the reality becomes more clear:

1590520334005.png
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
A coronavirus vaccine may arrive next year. 'Herd immunity' will take longer.


"I think the 12 to 18 months that has been mentioned is optimistic," Walter Orenstein, an Emory University medical school professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccines Center, said in an interview with BioPharma Dive. "It's possible if everything goes right, but with most vaccines it takes longer than that."

Raising the stakes on clinical development is the Trump administration's "Operation Warp Speed," which aims not only to have an approved vaccine, but also enough doses for every American by January. The president is asking the sector to compress a development cycle that can sometimes take decades into just 12 months — a feat that will require Americans to accept higher-than-usual safety risks along with the possibility the first vaccine they receive won't work that well.

"In the remote possibility that an approved, effective, safe general use vaccine was available a year from now, it would still take several years to confer sufficient 'herd immunity' to prevent endemic spread of COVID-19," Porges wrote in an April 21 note to clients. "We believe that achieving herd immunity sufficient to prevent epidemic spread is likely to occur in 2023 or 2024."


It's going to be a long haul, folks, years. By the time we know enough to safely release this vaccine, we'll be able to find good information on the subject. For now, this designer vaccine and all the woo woo sciency stuff being written online is as credible as flying cars, which, back in the day, was taken seriously too.

Then again, we could get lucky and it only takes a half a year. I know you wanted me to say that. (don't believe it)

1590524033182.png
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

Antibody tests for Covid-19 wrong up to half the time, CDC says

(CNN)Antibody tests used to determine if people have been infected in the past with Covid-19 might be wrong up to half the time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in new guidance posted on its website.

Antibody tests, often called serologic tests, look for evidence of an immune response to infection. "Antibodies in some persons can be detected within the first week of illness onset," the CDC says.

They are not accurate enough to use to make important policy decisions, the CDC said.
"Serologic test results should not be used to make decisions about grouping persons residing in or being admitted to congregate settings, such as schools, dormitories, or correctional facilities," the CDC says.

"Serologic test results should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace."
Health officials or health care providers who are using antibody tests need to use the most accurate test they can find and might need to test people twice, the CDC said in the new guidance.

"In most of the country, including areas that have been heavily impacted, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody is expected to be low, ranging from less than 5% to 25%, so that testing at this point might result in relatively more false positive results and fewer false-negative results," the CDC said.

The higher the sensitivity, the fewer false negatives a test will give. The higher the specificity, the fewer false positives. Across populations, tests give more accurate results if the disease being tested for is common in the population. If an infection has only affected a small percentage of people being tested, even a very small margin of error in a test will be magnified.

If just 5% of the population being tested has the virus, a test with more than 90% accuracy can still miss half the cases.
more...
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
The situation with Covid-19 continues to evolve, from the dark days of early march when public concern rose to a fevered pitch and people in the USA realised they would get no help from the federal government and the federal response was non existent. People were making DIY masks and few plans were available online, doctors in hospitals never even had supportive therapies and only ventilators were of any use, of which there was expected at the time to be a critical shortage. Desperate measures were being taken in all quarters and PPE collected in community drives as people anticipated a horrific onslaught with hospitals overcrowded, fortunately lockdowns (NPIs) prevented a catastrophe, not just in America but everywhere. Information was hard to come by in the early days and not a lot was known by science or the media, both needed time to adapt.

Now the situation is much better on all fronts, especial the media one, there is lots of expert advice online from many reliable sources, unfortunately there are also those with other agendas than public safety and disinformation abounts too. There is confusion in epidemiological circles and flawed studies and tests, other scientists and lay people trying to understand are dismayed, but finally solid information is starting to emerge and be utilised. Likewise knowledge about airborne spread and the value of masks evolved over time, as the danger from fomites and surface contamination. We are learning unsafe places and practices, as well as safe ones, vulnerable areas and how to protect them.

Doctors have supportive therapies now, antivirals are beginning to appear and studies on more are ongoing. Convalescent plasma therapy is being used under compassionate use guidelines and being studied at the same time as other preparations are made. We await a quality study and expert consensus on the efficacy of convalescent plasma, if this becomes a fact, then I would expect the infrastructure for delivery to ramp up quickly to the largest extent practical. Remember, there are 38,000 blood transfusions a day currently, just as normal business, so the scale is there to treat a 1000 people who might otherwise die a day, even if you have to treat 5 or more for every one you save. This I believe will end up having an impact on things, if the studies prove efficacy and feasibility.

Because there is now so much quality information out there online and in responsible media and also because there is so much disinformation out there and politics has intruded heavily into the area, I'm just gonna post high quality studies on treatment topics. Pre print non peer reviewed articles are a recent thing in science, another impact of the internet and do much to contribute to to public confusion unfortunately. They are made for science fans and are pretty esoteric, both those in the field and outside of it in other fields, as well as others who are interested, usually it's pretty boring technical stuff, just for nerds. Only peer reviewed studies are likely to have an impact on public policy and with Trump incharge? I'm only going to post peer reviewed studies here from here on out, that and news stories from reliable "mainstream" public sources that follow journalistic practices and standards, as I've always done. Pre print studies are interesting correlation studies for the most part that spot anomalies and patterns in the data to see if it's worth looking at with a larger better quality study. They aren't much use in making major public policy decisions or even medical ones, though doctors sometimes use them in emergency situations, when there are no other options, sometimes times empirical data is sufficient for them when lives are on the line

Major studies will impact public policy regarding covid -19 the most, at least for any government that follows science. That includes NPI's and safe smart ways to open up, as much as we can, as safely as we can guided by expert advice and not by political considerations. Economic concerns and considerations are valid though, but smart people know they are linked to public health. We cannot reopen successfully without testing, contact tracing, case isolation, NPI's, personal distancing, banning mass events and wearing masks in public, while avoiding enclosed poorly ventilated places. These are FACTS, they are the most important facts right now and they will save more lives than any treatment option the might be available soon, including plasma transfusions. Put a vaccine out of your mind for the foreseeable future, it is not an option until after Donald is gone and then it might be awhile, if ever according to some, the experts will make the calls and they will be in agreement, or I'm gonna be skeptical and my end up choosing a "side" if the option is available, I doubt it though, take it or leave it.

Our focus should be to mitigate the damage done by Trump and his minions at all levels of this issue from, reopening too early, silencing scientists, touting drugs and household cleaners and promising vaccines by christmas. Donald has fucked up every aspect of the preparation and response to this pandemic in America and will cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and is trying to kill even more by opening churches, suppressing information, impeding the response, spreading disinformation and chaos. To try and save as many lives as we can and mitigate the harm is a formidable task, with all the reclaitrance on the republican side about masks, some good has come out of it too though, Donald's base appears to be split on lockdowns and mask wearing, he's losing it with seniors and bleeding white support among those who have brains and want to survive.

In America is will be a state by state fight with covid and Donald, In Canada I hope for better and testing is now improving quickly. America will not solve this problem until Trump is gone and if he is re-elected it will be herd immunity and overwhelmed or barely coping hospitals and a Darwinian solution of casting away the weak and frail along with a lot of other regular people. Surviving Donald until January 20th might be quite a challenge in of itself, surviving him for four more years might be impossible.
 
Last edited:

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Treatment options are only for those who have the roughest of rides with covid, the one to the grave and it is no guarantee of survival or not being screwed for life with the after effects. The purpose of treatment options in the foreseeable future is to the save lives of the very sickest, or those who doctors expect to be, every one else will suffer and many will suffer mighty too. Treatment options are NOT a substitute for intelligent behavior and following expert public health advice. Even if a treatment were to help heal you, you would most likely suffer big time before it worked and maybe kill other people by spreading it yourself.

Here is the only thing of real note in the medical news update, they now have solid evidence that convalescent plasma therapy is safe to use, most thought it was, now it's somewhat confirmed. This is but one step in a cautious approach for a potentially widely deployed therapy, first do no harm and you must be sure. The next step is to prove efficacy with a careful study involving large numbers of patients and that is well underway, this will also establish standard treatment protocols that doctors use, if effecay is proven. Results are pending in a month or two and deployment is expected to be rapid and wide, volunteers may be required to help save lives. This is based on a pre print article, but it was a well conducted large scale study and I anticipate no issues with it and will make an exception, since it's only safety related.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Convalescent plasma therapy ‘safe’

MNT recently spoke to Dr. Arturo Casadevall, chair of the Molecular Microbiology & Immunology Department at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, MD, about convalescent plasma therapy.

This therapeutic approach dates back a century. Its premise is to use antibody-bearing blood components from people who have recovered from an infectious disease to treat others who have just developed it.

Dr. Casadevall brought this approach to the attention of other experts in the United States in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

People who have recovered from COVID-19, Dr. Casadevall told MNT, do have neutralizing antibodies that could specifically fight SARS-CoV-2. Thus, transfusions with plasma (a component of blood) from COVID-19 survivors could help others fight the disease.

Dr. Casadevall said that in the U.S., almost 12,000 people have already received convalescent plasma therapy.

He and his colleagues, including immunology experts from various institutions, have conducted a study they based on the data of the first 5,000.

This study, which is available online in preprint form, suggests that convalescent plasma therapy is safe.

Going forward, the specialists investigating the merits of this form of therapy for treating COVID-19 aim to confirm whether it is as effective in fighting this disease as it is safe.

“[First,] you want to show safety. And then the question of efficacy will be coming in the next few weeks. Right now, the data [is] being analyzed. We are hopeful.”
– Dr. Arturo Casadevall
The fact that this therapy will rely on convalescent plasma from donors, something that is already available makes it a promising early defense against COVID-19.

The approach could eventually become one of many therapeutic options for people that contract the new coronavirus.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I've got a full head of hair!
It seems to suggest castration could be a possible prophylaxis, perhaps a useful suggestion to some Trumpers :D
Seriously, it shows ya how keen they are at observing and I'm sure this might prove useful for further research and perhaps even triage of cases one day. It's an interesting observation and might even be useful in treatment, or determining who gets treatment early, with a blood test etc.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I looked through the funding and who was involved its legit research, probably motivated by Donald's touting one way or another though. That it is used as a Trump scam no doubt, and it's caused researchers and other officials a lot of grief, along with those who depend on it. Donald latched onto something doctors were quietly trying out of desperation and studying too. I don't post on it except if something big and well conducted comes out, either way it's all the same to me, science is about the truth or as close as you can get to it.

I've seen what happened with Clorox and such, he didn't even tout it, yet poison control centers across the country saw spikes in cases! Jesus he just fucked up spectacularly on TV, but it was enough!
What next with this guy? The protests are a test he is failing IMHO, losing in the polls badly a mere 20% approve of his handling of the trouble.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Top