World's Biggest Trial of Drug To Treat Covid-19 Begins in UK (theguardian.com) 141
The world's biggest trial of drugs to treat Covid-19 patients has been set up in the UK at unprecedented speed, and hopes to have some answers within weeks. From a report: The Recovery trial has recruited over 5,000 patients in 165 NHS hospitals around the UK in a month, ahead of similar trials in the US and Europe, which have a few hundred. "This is by far the largest trial in the world," said Peter Horby, professor of emerging infectious diseases and global health at Oxford University, who is leading it. He has previously led Ebola drug trials in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The Recovery team expects to be the first to have definitive data. "We're guessing some time in June we may get the results," said Prof Horby. "If it is really clear that there are benefits, an answer will be available quicker." But he warned that in the case of Covid-19, there would be no "magic bullet."
Hydroxychloroquine (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't that the same medication that you all blasted Trump for suggesting?
Re:Hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, that's not in the summary.
HE READ THE ARTICLE! GET HIM!
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, that's not in the summary.
HE READ THE ARTICLE! GET HIM!
I would, but he didn't seem to get the gist of the article so he gets a mulligan on this one.
Re: (Score:3)
I was expecting a reply in the lines of "We can't! We're supposed to stay six feet away from him!"
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Isn't that the same medication that you all blasted Trump for suggesting?
No. It's the medication that we blasted Trump for saying works despite no clinical trial being completed. It's the same medication that I'm now blasting you for seeing how you jumped to Trumps defense for a) not understanding what the situation is, and b) being just as dumb and presumptuous as he is.
Re: (Score:1)
Hope you know that during pandemics, clinical trials don't happen when the bodies are filling up refrigerated truck trailers and ice rinks are used for storage. I find it far more interesting at just how hard and fast people like yourself(and the media) flip out over it because Trump mentioned it, despite there not being a problem with it when other countries were doing the same thing and touting it. And yes, they were touting it long before Trump said anything.
It's almost like your irrational hate is so
Re: (Score:2)
Clinical trials are how you know whether something actually works. Humans are *incredibly* bad at figuring such things out reliably without rigorous scientific analysis - that's why science exists and has ushered in such rapid technological innovation. Our brains are wired for anecdotal reasoning, aka superstition, because until a few thousand years ago that was really the only option we had.
A pandemic is a good reason to fast-track such trials, but without them it's just desperate doctors hoping maybe th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing with quinine medications is we know two things, they stop over aggressive immune responses. We know they induce different elements directly into cells which stop or inhibit parasitic or viral growth within the cell. Hope you know that hydroxychloroquine's lethal side effects are below the average rate for heart damage compared to most commonly prescribed ACE/ACE2 blood pressure medications by nearly 20% No? Well, plenty of time to learn, unless you're like me and are still working for a livin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you just pick a random drug and start pumping it into people. It helps if you can find a celebrity to endorse it. Say a 2nd rate TV personality turned President.
Ah. So the all powerful Trump is telling doctors in dozens of other countries what to do? No wait, he's not. He is repeating what those doctors and their trials and tests have already shown however. It's not that hard to think a little bit.
Not for the people who miss out on actual useful drugs. But fun for the Orange Man Bad types, and the Trump is a genius why don't you all just listen to him like me people.
Maybe you're listening to the wrong news? Since I heard about it through a business contact in Singapore, that was during the initial outbreak stage there. Live less in your bubble I guess. Less orange man bad intake from english media? I realize that might ruin th
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but what the fuck? When did he say it works?
Shit, even a shoddy biased hitpiece trying to call him a liar doesn't even claim that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also in the trial now are a combination of two antiretroviral drugs used in HIV treatment, lopinavir-ritonavir, known by the brand name Kaletra, and low-dose dexamethasone, a type of steroid used in a range of conditions, typically to reduce inflammation.
The next one to be included, said Horby, is an interleukin 6 antagonist, one of the immunomodulator drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis and to treat cytokine storm – something that happens when the immune system goes into overdrive, as can happen in Covid-19. They are looking at tocilizumab.
They are also in discussions about introducing convalescent plasma – blood from people who have recovered that contains antibodies against the virus. They want to trial remdesivir, but have not been able to obtain the stocks they need, because it is being tested in China and the US and because doctors are already prescribing it on compassionate use grounds.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that the same medication that you all blasted Trump for suggesting?
It is. Because most of us, from a rationale perspective, are hoping this drug works, and want to see it tested scientifically, in carefully, controller trials to be sure of things like it's efficacy, the proper dosage, it's side effects, etc. I wasn't so much against the drug as I was against "try it, what do you have to lose", especially in light of some of the limited studies which showed higher doses may cause more harm than good, other studies which showed limited effects what-so-ever, and some random a
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that the same medication that you all blasted Trump for suggesting?
Among others, yes. Moderated -1, Wrongthink.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, HCQ was suggested back in H5N1 days for that. And the thing about HCQ is that it shows a lot of promise in vitro, but in trails it usually doesn't pan out. From the article.
“I would say no,” said Horby. “There is in-vitro evidence that it is inhibitory against the virus [in the lab]. But I haven’t seen any sound clinical data. “We’re seeing a large number of publications. It’s hard to keep up with them. Most of them are very disappointing. There was a paper that said it was a breakthrough – chloroquine works. But there was zero data in it. It seems to follow in that vein. They show a certain percentage of patients recovering, which would happen anyway.”
This isn't the first time China has suggested HCQ as treatment based solely on in lab. Every time thus far it's shown to be "not as good as the current protocol" in vivo. Now all I am saying is this. We've been down this road before of China suggesting HCQ. Every time it has resulted in not that great results. I mean
Re:Hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Insightful)
all while not discussing his financial ties to hydroxychloroquine manufacturers.
Wut? You mean that $700 investment from a hands-off fund, for a drug that's been clear of patents and generic for nearly 50 years, and can be made for pennies per-100 dose units by anyone. Yes indeed, he's gonna rake in tens of dollars from that investment. Guess that's what happens when you only believe what you're told.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that $700 investment from a hands-off fund
You get that from his tax records?
Re: (Score:2)
You get that from his tax records?
Investments are public record here in North America, I'm surprised you don't know this.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
"That idiot is a genius!"
I wish I could associate that with someone, so I could print it on a poster and hang it on my wall.
Anyone wants to suggest someone?
Re: (Score:1)
Financial ties with Hydroxychloroquine manufactures? You are kidding right?
This drug has been on the market for 50 years and is sold over the counter in countries where malaria is prevalent. There is NO huge profit in making and selling this stuff.
So, I got to ask, do you have proof that Trump is making money on this or is it just a theory of yours that you spout off about because it fits your preconceptions of Trump?
Re:Hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Informative)
So, I got to ask, do you have proof that Trump is making money on this or is it just a theory of yours that you spout off about because it fits your preconceptions of Trump?
He's echoing a fake news hitpiece from the New York Times.
Even politifact and snopes semi-panned it. They rated it "half true" and "mostly false" respectively, but even in summaries they point out that his "financial interest" is a drop in the bucket in mutual funds, that it's not under his control, and that it's not a violation of conflict of interest laws.
I didn't read them deeply enough to see if they noticed that the drug is out of patent and about as cheap as aspirin.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone makes HCQ or can, it not under patent and costs like $1/dose.
Re: (Score:2)
Norvartis realised they where getting nothing out of the deal 1 month into the 12 month contract for 100 000$ per month.
They pulled the plug then and there.
Cohen got 100 000$ only.
In any case, HCQ is made by dozens of companies, and secondly, ALL those companies have given hundreds of millions of doses to hospitals around the world during this pandemic.
There was and is no money to be made with this drug.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically in line with most of what Trump says.
I do not care if he financially benefits from this IF IT WORKS. Some anecdotal evidence from a few people who beat the virus does not pass off as evidence.
We have avocados with our meal 2-3 times per week and none of us have been infected. Avocados must be the solution!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump was blasted because he was spouting the efficacy of the drug as a treatment while there is little to no evidence supporting its efficacy all while not discussing his financial ties to hydroxychloroquine manufacturers.
This is an actual clinical trial to see if the drug is effective. Do you understand the difference?
P.S. Someone tell Trump that the UK has a bigger study than he does. He'll look at his tiny hands and then lie directly to the cameras.
He was "spouting" hopefulness that the drug combo could be a game changer. Normal people who are not TDS-consumed like hopefulness.
And the idea that he had this hope for reasons of personal financial gain is ludicrous. He's the flipping president, and he's in his 70s. You people are seriously insane. Your hate has made you lose touch with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
But Trump didint say it was a game changer. He said it COULD be a game changer.
Did your news source omit that word?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was blasted because he was spouting the efficacy of the drug as a treatment while there is little to no evidence supporting its efficacy all while not discussing his financial ties to hydroxychloroquine manufacturers.
This is an actual clinical trial to see if the drug is effective. Do you understand the difference?
P.S. Someone tell Trump that the UK has a bigger study than he does. He'll look at his tiny hands and then lie directly to the cameras.
The reporting of his financial ties was pretty overblown (a tiny bit of stock via a mutual fund). But the pushing of the drug ahead of the science is definitely problematic.
For instance, one of the supposed reasons for the stock market rally today isn't hydroxychloroquine, it's promising results for an early trial for a completely different drug remdesivir [ctvnews.ca].
Now, I don't know if that will pan out over a big study. But one of the problems with Trump's disproportionate fixation on hydroxychloroquine is way too
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump was blasted because he was spouting the efficacy of the drug as a treatment while there is little to no evidence supporting its efficacy all while not discussing his financial ties to hydroxychloroquine manufacturers.
You mean ~$100 worth of their stock held via a mutual fund (Dodge & Cox)? It's not patented and it costs maybe $1 per dose (well, for your hospital, how much you get charged is another story). Meanwhile, HN was excited when someone finally synthesized a whole gram of remdesvir
Re:Hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Informative)
Trump was blasted because he was spouting the efficacy of the drug as a treatment while there is little to no evidence supporting its efficacy
The medias re-interpretation of what Trump said.... is not reality.
From his address:
------
Now, a drug called chloroquine - and some people would add to it "hydroxy-." Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. If somebody has pretty serious arthritis, also uses this in a somewhat different form. But it is known as a malaria drug, and it's been around for a long time and it's very powerful. But the nice part is, it's been around for a long time, so we know that if it - if things don't go as planned, it's not going to kill anybody.
When you go with a brand-new drug, you don't know that that's going to happen. You have to see and you have to go - long test. But this has been used in different forms - very powerful drug - in different forms. And it's shown very encouraging - very, very encouraging early results. And we're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that's where the FDA has been so great. They - they've gone through the approval process; it's been approved. And they did it - they took it down from many, many months to immediate. So we're going to be able to make that drug available by prescription or states
I spoke with Governor Cuomo about it at great length last night, and he wants to be right on - on the - he wants to be first on line. And so I think that's a tremendous - there's tremendous promise, based on the results and other tests. There's tremendous promise. And normally the FDA would take a long time to approve something like that, and it's - it was approved very, very quickly and it's now approved, by prescription. Individual states will handle it. They can handle it. Doctors will handle it. And I think it's going to be - I think it's going to be great.
Then we're quickly studying this drug, and while we're continuing to study it - but the studying is going to be also done in - as it's given out to large groups of people, perhaps in New York and other places. We'll study it there.
There are promising therapies produced by Gilead, and that's remdesivir. Remdesivir. And that's a drug used for other purposes that's been out and has had very good results for other purposes, but it seems to have a very good result, having to do with this virus. And that drug also has been approved or very close to approved, in that case, by the FDA.
And I can't tell you how much we appreciate what the FDA - these people are incredible patriots. And the job that Stephen Hahn is doing - Dr. Hahn, who is one of the most respected doctors in the country, by the way, where we took him. I said, "You sure you want to do this?" Now, we didn't know that this was going to be in the playlist, what happened here, but he really has stepped up to the plate, wherever you are. Where is he? You really have.
------
So not only did he not "spout the efficacy of the drug as a treatment" (the media just says that he did) --- that Governor Coumo of all people wanted his State to be first in line to do testing.
He also mentions Remdesivir at the same time, which is the drug this article is about.
The media "took the opportunity" to "blame Trump" because some idiots took fish tank cleaner or whatever (and perhaps it was murder) and here you are, even today, when the facts about what Trump said have been merely seconds away from you... for an entire month... it tells us everything we need to know about your words, and your opinions on this matter. Not worth shit. You are a trumpet for a media that is selling you to advertisers, and buying you with your own easily manipulated confirmation bias.
Re: (Score:2)
It's proably going to find it's useless ... but we suspected that already, the trials so far have been, non-blind look some people survived "trials"
But they are also testing drugs that look promising so we might find one, ad they will also test new drugs as they become available ...
So you think the clinical trial is stupid? (Score:2)
The are literally millions of medications. Do you think the whole world should (and did) skip all the preliminary research, skip the phase 1 trials, skip the phase 2, and go right to large phase 3 trials of randomly chosen medications with "is little to no evidence" that a particular medication is effective?
Or do you think researchers and doctors around the world are complete morons and only you have a clue, since research universities around the world are conducting trials of hydroxychloroquine, not random
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was blasted because he was spouting the efficacy of the drug as a treatment while there is little to no evidence supporting its efficacy all while not discussing his financial ties to hydroxychloroquine manufacturers.
This is an actual clinical trial to see if the drug is effective. Do you understand the difference?
P.S. Someone tell Trump that the UK has a bigger study than he does. He'll look at his tiny hands and then lie directly to the cameras.
Not much of a tie [businessinsider.com]. Can't you do better than that?
Re: (Score:2)
there does seem to be some hope here
But the thing is, we already have an effective protocol established. I'm not saying don't look at other things, but for HCQ to be worth it's salt, it's going to have to pull a much higher hitting batting average than the current protocol. You're argument gives the feel that we have no protocol established. But there is already a protocol of antivirals and corticosteroids, with blood protein level testing rates. So we already have tests that we can do in lab to see how well the body is responding to the
Re:Hydroxychloroquine (Score:4, Interesting)
"Nobody should be suggesting any drug that can have side-effects, without any actual clinical evidence."
This is what brain damage looks like folks.
Did you mean to say that nobody should be telling you what side-effects a drug could have without actual clinical data?... instead?
One thing is for certain... any drug not only can, but WILL have side-effects. That is just a fucking fact and has been perfectly observed many many fucking times now. You can try and say something as simple as a peanut does not have side effects... until they kill someone with an allergy. Side-Effects are going to happen, it is a certainty. Question is which ones, with who, and when?
Re: Hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That is a matter of opinion. There are times I can appreciate colorful metaphors and of course there are times I don't. Sure we can all discuss things without colorful language but lets be honest... complaints like that are usually by people when they hate seeing someone being right.
Adjectives are an important part of people expressing themselves... and if we should not be allowed to express ourselves... well except in your "approved ways" I guess right?
Re: Hydroxychloroquine (Score:1)
There is a difference between colourful language and your abusive language though. It just isn't effective at getting your point across, Mr Astray
Re: (Score:2)
That is a matter of opinion. There are times I can appreciate colorful metaphors and of course there are times I don't. Sure we can all discuss things without colorful language but lets be honest... complaints like that are usually by people when they hate seeing someone being right.
Adjectives are an important part of people expressing themselves... and if we should not be allowed to express ourselves... well except in your "approved ways" I guess right?
When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them--then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are far apart. -- Mark Twain
Re: (Score:3)
I have been hoping for years that Slashdot would get back to where it used to be 15 years ago, dropping F bombs doesn't add value to the discourse
Fuck that shit. Fucky fuck, fuck fuck! Everything is about my fucking belief system! I'm a fucking expert on every fucking thing in the fucking world for fucks sake!!! You fucking fuck-nut!
Unfortunate that I must include that this is satire. But yeah, that's Slashdot in this day and age. Hey maybe rational discourse is a tick-tock thing and we're just waiting for the next tick?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Hydroxychloroquine (Score:2)
so unless you have a formal double blind placebo controlled study that is significant, you can't really tell much.
A placebo controlled study where some demographics are know to have a 20% death rate is unethical. A reasonable standard of care study is the best that you can do where you pit your two most promising treatment options against each other. Even then, if one treatment option shows early significant improvement over the other option then you are morally obligated to inform the patient and switch them to the treatment that actually works.
Re:Hydroxychloroquine (Score:5, Informative)
Hydroxychloroquine has been around so long, the patent expired. The side effects are well known. It is being prescribed by the CDC and approved by the FDA for people that will have a 20-50% chance of survival. If you're nearly guaranteed to die, perhaps trying something new wouldn't be such a bad idea, even though the very minor side effects (dizziness or lightheadedness being the primary ones).
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody always talks about side effects, but nobody ever talks about front effects or back effects.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why here in Canada our lab testing relies on pudding. Because that's where the proof is.
No News (Score:2)
"They're testing a bunch of drugs in a bunch of trials. Some that Trump likes and some others"
Waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this (as of the time of this comment) isn't rated +ten million informative is clearly a sign that mods need to catch up.
They're not testing the treatment claimed to work (Score:2)
The original claim was that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin has a strong beneficial effect. This study is ONLY testing them separately.
What is WRONG with these people? Haven't they ever heard of synergy?
Fortunately there are a lot of other studies [laboratoryequipment.com] going on.
Re: They're not testing the treatment claimed to w (Score:2)
I doubt the best practice is to start with a cocktail (in clinical trials rather than parties)?
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the best practice is to start with a cocktail (in clinical trials rather than parties)?
If the claim is the two drug combination A and B is doing the trick, it seems to me that having groups for drug A, drug B, and control, but none for drug A AND drug B, doesn't make any sense.
It's not like "The largest clinical trial" doesn't have enough subjects to do this.
It's also not like the "cocktail" has six ingredients (in which case testing them all individually while ignoring the combination makes even LE
Re: (Score:1)
And this guy says you have to add Zinc to the HCL and Z-pack:
https://abc7.com/health/doctor... [abc7.com]
What's going to happen is that the pointy-haired are going to take this and test it for 2 years, while 2 million more people die, and then they're going to step out and say "Good news. Our tests show that this combination of drugs would have cured these 2 million people."
At this point the mob of bereaved next of kin will rush forward, seize the pointy-hairs, make millions selling pay-per-view of their lynching to
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Test for "synergy" and that could see two results to have to buy in bulk. Expensive extra spending for a nation like the UK.
Dont test the "synergy" and its always going to be one result.
One test, a set of results per test, one approved good result, one product for the UK gov to have to buy in bulk.
Never approve a test that could get a result that costs more than a nation can afford to later approve.
Thats h
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. No, the UK will seek an effective treatment. These trials will help inform that.
If there are multiple viable treatments, cost will indeed be a factor in which to adopt. At the moment there are not, so cost is not the primary driver.
Advanced nations
While I'm not going to pretend the UK is perfect, and can indeed highlight many flaws in the NHS, you'd have to be a fucking moron to pretend that the UK isn't as advanced as any other nation.
What drug? (Score:4)
Is it too much to ask what drug be mentioned in the summary?
Or would that be a game changer? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want medical advice you can get that from Trump's twitter feed.
Re: What drug? (Score:1)
Re: What drug? (Score:2)
Two different ones from the article, but it is light on detail.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the curative colour is yellow, everyone knows that!
So your green baseball cap has been diluted with blue. If you get rid of the diluent and wear a yellow baseball cap it will work so much better (or, you could wear four green baseball caps all at the same time to up the concentration of the effective ingredient, being the yellow.
Also, you need to make sure that the waffles are Aunt Jemmima brand as the others don't work as well.
Stopping intake of all fluids for 21 days has also proven curati
Re: We'll see... (Score:2)
Well, a hijab could double as a face covering and a full niqab already covers the face so both would theoretically offer some protection from covid19 transmission. Turbans or keffiyeh for men could function similarly.
trial medication (Score:2)
* Lopinavir-Ritonavir (commonly used to treat HIV)
*Low-dose Dexamethasone (a type of steroid, which is used in a range of conditions typically to reduce inflammation).
*Hydroxychloroquine (related to an anti-malarial drug)
*Azithromycin (a commonly used antibiotic)
* lopinavir-ritonavir (anti-hiv drug)
* dexamet
Re: (Score:1)
Do they have a fucking control group? If not, all of the studies are shit.
Re: trial medication (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. No they're not shit. They can be one another's control groups, to some extent. You can use multiple groups to assert treatment A is better than Treatment B.
I barely scratched the surface of the topic in the Statistics courses I took, but the ignorance displayed here is appalling.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:We will have herd immunity (Score:5, Funny)
Oh shit, it's "herd immunity"? All this time I was reading "nerd immunity" and thought Slashdot readers were invincible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh shit, it's "herd immunity"? All this time I was reading "nerd immunity" and thought Slashdot readers were invincible.
We are. We've been social distancing since before it was the latest trendy Twitter hashtag.
Re: (Score:1)
An ex of mine sent me a note, "this is like your guys' superbowl!".
A little insensitive calling our superbowl a deadly pandemic, but it wasn't entirely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
People risking life and limb on the front lines? The masses sitting around at home watching TV, getting drunk, and binge-eating? Yeah, I can see the parallels.
Too bad the people risking their neck this time actually have something of value to offer society. (Yes, entertainment is valuable - the actual entertainment value of organized sports versus a deck of cards or partying with friends is dubious)
Re: (Score:2)
https://static.hitek.fr/img/up... [hitek.fr]
Re: (Score:1)
Ain't that the truth. Apart from when I go to the grocery store and the fact that I keep my mail in isolation for a week to let any potential COVID-19 die, I don't see any difference in my weekly routine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We've got social distancing down pat, but Vitamin D deficiency looks to be a factor so maybe not
Re: We will have herd immunity (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, (and I do have experience and currently working on some designs), there is a small chance the current generation of vaccine designs might not work or may not work for round 2 of this thing. For one thing, most of the designs I know about are targeting the infamous spike protein. I'm not saying they are bad, I mean the folks on it know what they are doing and it will likely work and I hope it does.
But with any design there come some tradeoffs, the tradeoffs in my opinion with targeting the spi
Re: (Score:2)
"Since the older antibodies may bind to the virus protein (though uselessly), the immune system doubles down on it and rather than introspection and regret it gets pissed off saying "wtf, it worked last time, this has to work.. it worked before!"."
The immune system is a complex system of chemical interactions. It does not "introspect". It does not "regret it" nor "get pissed off" nor be "saying" anything at all. It does what it does because it is a biochemical system. It does not think anymore than "sug
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks Captain Obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
I took some sort of zinc herbal something we had lying around and I recovered.
So, there - you'll all be fine. Take some of that. 100% success here.
Re: (Score:3)
We're a long, long way from herd immunity. We're maybe two months away from having at least some useful evidence-based guidance on medication.
The "herd immunity threshold" for diseases varies by how infectious they are. For example mumps has an R0 of between 10 and 12, so it has a herd immunity threshold of 92%. COVID-19 has an R0 of around 3, which means we'll need 70% of the population immune to stop it (source [jhsph.edu]).
The most extreme estimates of how much we're undercounting infections I've seen say we're un
On effectiveness (Score:2)
There is about as much evidence of Remdesivir working as Hydroxychloroquine working, which is basically antidotal.
One interesting aspect of reading so far anecdotal evidence of how these two drugs work, is that both of them are said to work much better if given early on, yet both at the start were given to only highly advanced cases... so both after study involving less severe cases, may well work better even than anecdotes suggest when used as soon as people are diagnosed...
Remdesivir may be better in term
Re:On effectiveness (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that with an IFR of only .3%, if you're doing a drug trial on patients who just started getting sick, you need almost 5,000 trial participants in a controlled study just to reach 95% confidence. Even the largest studies on this drug to date are an order of magnitude too small to be meaningful.
The CFR for people who are intubated is much higher, so you can get statistical significance with a lower number. That's why a 21-person study of critically ill people has more weight than a 600+-person study of people with mild symptoms.
Of course, if the drug has a meaningful effect on fatality only when given early in the disease's progression, that won't work, and it takes a much, much bigger study to know anything at all.
I have serious doubts about chloroquine and friends. Chances are, the zinc mattered, and the rest was noise.
not on effectiveness, but on safety (Score:3)
Safe dosage is similar for different indications. Effective dosages can, and does vary drastically between indications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do we really know that?
There is about as much evidence of Remdesivir working as Hydroxychloroquine working ....
Eh, wrong. There is no evidence of Hydroxychloroquine, there is early evidence of Remdesivir is working: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/0... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, wrong. There is no evidence of Hydroxychloroquine [working\, ...
There are a number of studies showing Hydroxychloroquine working, with things like better outcomes and lower virus loads than in the patients refusing it, used as controls. But they're too small and ad-hoc to be convincing (and subject to selection bias), let alone to be a good input for selecting among the candidate drugs and tuning dose schedules (or defending against lawsuits).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are a number of studies showing Hydroxychloroquine working
There are no well-designed studies that show it. And by now we have well-designed studies showing the opposite: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org] or https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org] or https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org] .
It's still possible that some combination of HCQ, azythromycin and/or zinc magically works because of an unheard of synergy, but it's very doubtful.
Re: (Score:2)
zinc magically works because of an unheard of synergy, but it's very doubtful.
It has been known for many years (at least since 2014) that chloroquine helps zinc get into the cell. See this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Zinc has been known to inhibit virus replication,including SARS in vitro https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
So there is a reasonable basis for thinking the combination of hydroxychloroquine and zinc might work. Many people point this out, but for some reasons it gets ignored. Even many of the trials with hydroxychloroquine don't seem to be combining
Re: Magic Bullet? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)