[BostonCard]

Looks like the administration is "all in" on a vaccine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/healt...nding.html

That's great if the vaccine works.  But if it doesn't, or if it is imperfect, this seems like a short-sighted policy.  The dexamethasone trial in the UK showed that drugs are already available that can cut mortality by 20 - 35% (depending on how sick someone is when they come to the hospital).  Plus lots of people developing antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, immune modulators, etc.  While preventing spread and preventing disease is obviously important and if it can be done effectively will be key for the long-term management of COVID-19, given that this is unlikely to go away entirely, and given the possibility of waning immunity, finding a way to treat people who develop COVID-19 and reduce mortality (and shorten the duration of illness) would seem to be a wise idea.

BC

I should mention that I work for a pharmaceutical company (one whose clinical trials are partly BARDA funded), so I would have a conflict of interest.

[BostonCard]

Looks like the administration is "all in" on a vaccine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/healt...nding.html

That's great if the vaccine works.  But if it doesn't, or if it is imperfect, this seems like a short-sighted policy.  The dexamethasone trial in the UK showed that drugs are already available that can cut mortality by 20 - 35% (depending on how sick someone is when they come to the hospital).  Plus lots of people developing antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, immune modulators, etc.  While preventing spread and preventing disease is obviously important and if it can be done effectively will be key for the long-term management of COVID-19, given that this is unlikely to go away entirely, and given the possibility of waning immunity, finding a way to treat people who develop COVID-19 and reduce mortality (and shorten the duration of illness) would seem to be a wise idea.

BC

I should mention that I work for a pharmaceutical company (one whose clinical trials are partly BARDA funded), so I would have a conflict of interest.

[OutsiderFan]

It's a good rule of thumb to conclude the opposite of what this administration says is the truth and that whatever it chooses to do is the product of terrible judgment.

[OutsiderFan]

It's a good rule of thumb to conclude the opposite of what this administration says is the truth and that whatever it chooses to do is the product of terrible judgment.

[76lsjumb]

It's a good rule of thumb to conclude the opposite of what this administration says is the truth and that whatever it chooses to do is the product of terrible judgment.

From the article:  "Some clinicians and bioethicists contend that BARDA should continue supporting research into treatments for lung conditions, while other experts contend the policy is a sensible way to spend limited federal dollars."

If unreasoned opposition to anything Trump does is one's principle, one's principle is just just as illusory as Trump's.  If he had taken the opposite approach, you would apparently be saying the exact same thing.  All that does is make you a mirror.  There are a lot of people who very much dislike what they see in Trump ... but simply seeing his mirror image is frequently no better.

[76lsjumb]

It's a good rule of thumb to conclude the opposite of what this administration says is the truth and that whatever it chooses to do is the product of terrible judgment.

From the article:  "Some clinicians and bioethicists contend that BARDA should continue supporting research into treatments for lung conditions, while other experts contend the policy is a sensible way to spend limited federal dollars."

If unreasoned opposition to anything Trump does is one's principle, one's principle is just just as illusory as Trump's.  If he had taken the opposite approach, you would apparently be saying the exact same thing.  All that does is make you a mirror.  There are a lot of people who very much dislike what they see in Trump ... but simply seeing his mirror image is frequently no better.

[OutsiderFan]

My point is, I can't "vet" everything the POTUS or WH says or does. I just know that if I play the percentages, I'm going to be closer to the truth if I assume everything he and it says and does are lies and the products of bad judgment.  Might he and they tell the truth or do the right thing? Sure, you know, blind squirrels and nuts.  

I don't take anything habitual liars say seriously because I don't take habitual liars seriously. It's a good rule of thumb everyone should follow and it's why I put such a premium on truth that can be proven or backed with compelling evidence. It's also why I became an atheist when 14 years old. There may be others who value truth as much as me, but nobody values it more than me. I can promise you that.

[OutsiderFan]

My point is, I can't "vet" everything the POTUS or WH says or does. I just know that if I play the percentages, I'm going to be closer to the truth if I assume everything he and it says and does are lies and the products of bad judgment.  Might he and they tell the truth or do the right thing? Sure, you know, blind squirrels and nuts.  

I don't take anything habitual liars say seriously because I don't take habitual liars seriously. It's a good rule of thumb everyone should follow and it's why I put such a premium on truth that can be proven or backed with compelling evidence. It's also why I became an atheist when 14 years old. There may be others who value truth as much as me, but nobody values it more than me. I can promise you that.

[M T]

The dexamethasone trial in the UK showed that drugs are already available that can cut mortality by 20 - 35% (depending on how sick someone is when they come to the hospital). 

Whoopee!  The CFR for 75+ drops all the way down to 34.5 - 42.5% (if NYC wasn't using that drug already).

While 20-35% is great, a whole lot more would be needed before the disease isn't dramatically dangerous to a segment of our population.


(NYC has about 360.1K people 75+; NYC indicates that in that group, there were about (4489.97*3.601) 16,168 infections, and that there were between 8,581 (confirmed) and 11,092 (confirmed + probable) deaths in that group, for a CFR of 53.1% to maybe 68.6%.   Using probable deaths, the IFR for 75+ was 3.08% or greater.)

[M T]

The dexamethasone trial in the UK showed that drugs are already available that can cut mortality by 20 - 35% (depending on how sick someone is when they come to the hospital). 

Whoopee!  The CFR for 75+ drops all the way down to 34.5 - 42.5% (if NYC wasn't using that drug already).

While 20-35% is great, a whole lot more would be needed before the disease isn't dramatically dangerous to a segment of our population.


(NYC has about 360.1K people 75+; NYC indicates that in that group, there were about (4489.97*3.601) 16,168 infections, and that there were between 8,581 (confirmed) and 11,092 (confirmed + probable) deaths in that group, for a CFR of 53.1% to maybe 68.6%.   Using probable deaths, the IFR for 75+ was 3.08% or greater.)