COVID-19 Thread

[jerichoholicninja]

What drugs are available?

There are none. Initially several anti-viral drugs already approved for other viruses were hoped to help. I believe 2 have been tried and the results are they FAILED to work as hoped. Both didn't do anything compared to controls to stop COVAD-19. Another hope is the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine. It has been used to treat the parasitic infection that causes malaria. One uncontrolled tiny "study" indicated hydroxychloroquine might help. How an anti-parasitic drug will be better than an anti-viral drug in treating coronavirus is not mechanistically clear. At this point hydroxychloroquine is a YUGE long-shot given that tens of thousands of drugs that show promise in small uncontrolled experiments end up with no positive result when properly tested in large studies. The greatest hope, to date ,was a japanese anti-viral that has been showing very good results with other viral infections and it failed.

 

I'm not a medical expert, nor do I claim to be, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night but I've been wondering if low doses of Chemo might work. Kill everything and hope the body can come back. At least get rid of the as much of the virus as possible so the body can try to repair itself. I'm sure people much smarter than I have thought of that though.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Chemo absolutely destroys the immune system, permanently to some extent. It is why people in remission who are healthy years after cancer are susceptible to this thing.

[homer]

Safer-At-Home goes into effect at 8am tomorrow....will last till April 24th unless another order overrides it.

 

Doesn't appear to be that crazy. No gyms, theaters, dine in restaurants, spas, salons, etc. Just trying to keep people from congregating in large groups.

 

I suppose if this goes on a few months half the guys out there will be walking around looking like Jesus and the other half will be walking around with bad haircuts that they got from their wives.

 

I'm letting it all go. I will look like Moses by the time this is done.

[nodakfan17]

[sarcasm]Thank goodness all those asymptomatic celebrities got tested. Otherwise, this thing could have really gotten out of hand.[/sarcasm]

[FVBrewerFan]

It's also irresponsible to say there will be no completely protective vaccine. You don't know that- nobody does. As you said yourself, the flu vaccine each year works against certain strands. It is entirely possible there will evetualy be a vaccine for C-19.

 

And even with a yearly flu vaccine, TENS of millions in the US contract it and 0.1% die from it. That's not completely protective. Yes, even people who get the flu vaccine will get the flu.

 

And it's a strawman argument that something is "possible" that it weighs merit if the likelihood is so low to be functionally zero. No, I can't disprove that space aliens landed and infected us with a novel virus to see how we would respond because I can't prove a negative (like aliens don't exist or they didn't land in Wuhan). The chance a completely protective vaccine is possible is so low that no credible person should use that as a basis to change policy. Policy should be based on highly likely possibilities. Otherwise you just end up killing more people.

 

Hydroxychloroquine is not a huge longshot. True, there have been no detailed study, there's no time for that. But it was a huge success when tried France, State of WA has started using it, and they are very optimistic so far. NY and other states have started experimenting. For the people who are dying, there is nothing to lose. I thin we'll see more widespread use as the week goes on, and it won't be theoretical anymore. We'll know soon if can have a substantial impact on saving lives.

Giving people stuff and expecting either a positive finding or no harm is the reason we need the FDA. Often you harm people while trying to help them. I worked in a biotech company years ago and our first product made it through phase 1 clinical trials, but went down in phase 2 when it actually killed more people than if they received the control treatment. More died with the drug than without! That happens often. Too often to just shrug off the dangers. There's some data from China how to proceed with severe cases, not sure anyone in the US is paying attention because the WHO said it. I have no problem with doctors trying novel approaches when dealing with severely ill people, within certain guidelines. This isn't ebola or SARS, the mortality rate is much lower so the waiving of "experimenting" on patients isn't as justified.

 

Except it's already approved by the FDA, and has been in use for many years. Even if it wasn't, what is the downside of giving dying people this drug? I understand clinical trials are needed to use it for this application on a mass basis, I don't understand why it's not an option for anyone dying, or even in critical condition. And again, this is a known drug, not experimental.

[homer]

It's also irresponsible to say there will be no completely protective vaccine. You don't know that- nobody does. As you said yourself, the flu vaccine each year works against certain strands. It is entirely possible there will evetualy be a vaccine for C-19.

 

And even with a yearly flu vaccine, TENS of millions in the US contract it and 0.1% die from it. That's not completely protective. Yes, even people who get the flu vaccine will get the flu.

 

And it's a strawman argument that something is "possible" that it weighs merit if the likelihood is so low to be functionally zero. No, I can't disprove that space aliens landed and infected us with a novel virus to see how we would respond because I can't prove a negative (like aliens don't exist or they didn't land in Wuhan). The chance a completely protective vaccine is possible is so low that no credible person should use that as a basis to change policy. Policy should be based on highly likely possibilities. Otherwise you just end up killing more people.

 

Hydroxychloroquine is not a huge longshot. True, there have been no detailed study, there's no time for that. But it was a huge success when tried France, State of WA has started using it, and they are very optimistic so far. NY and other states have started experimenting. For the people who are dying, there is nothing to lose. I thin we'll see more widespread use as the week goes on, and it won't be theoretical anymore. We'll know soon if can have a substantial impact on saving lives.

Giving people stuff and expecting either a positive finding or no harm is the reason we need the FDA. Often you harm people while trying to help them. I worked in a biotech company years ago and our first product made it through phase 1 clinical trials, but went down in phase 2 when it actually killed more people than if they received the control treatment. More died with the drug than without! That happens often. Too often to just shrug off the dangers. There's some data from China how to proceed with severe cases, not sure anyone in the US is paying attention because the WHO said it. I have no problem with doctors trying novel approaches when dealing with severely ill people, within certain guidelines. This isn't ebola or SARS, the mortality rate is much lower so the waiving of "experimenting" on patients isn't as justified.

 

Except it's already approved by the FDA, and has been in use for many years. Even if it wasn't, what is the downside of giving dying people this drug? I understand clinical trials are needed to use it for this application on a mass basis, I don't understand why it's not an option for anyone dying, or even in critical condition. And again, this is a known drug, not experimental.

 

It's my understanding that there's not a lot of it. So you'd end up giving it to people not knowing if it would work and thus depriving people on whom we know it does work.

[PeaveyFury]

Except it's already approved by the FDA, and has been in use for many years. Even if it wasn't, what is the downside of giving dying people this drug? I understand clinical trials are needed to use it for this application on a mass basis, I don't understand why it's not an option for anyone dying, or even in critical condition. And again, this is a known drug, not experimental.

 

Its use as a treatment for COVID-19 is the definition of experimental.

[MrTPlush]

It sounds like Wisconsin *only* added 35 cases since yesterday’s update. The state total is now at 416. That’s encouraging, right?

 

A bit over 24 hours later and it appears we sit at 457. This is an increase of 39.

 

Negative test count is at 8237.

[adambr2]

It sounds like Wisconsin *only* added 35 cases since yesterday’s update. The state total is now at 416. That’s encouraging, right?

 

A bit over 24 hours later and it appears we sit at 457. This is an increase of 39.

 

Negative test count is at 8237.

 

506 according to this link.

 

https://www.tmj4.com/news/there-are-now-459-covid-cases-in-wisconsin

 

Still not growing exponentially, so that's good. Milwaukee and Madisom are obviously the problem areas as expected.

[wallus]

A good friend of mine took the test and it just came back negative. It only took him a week to hear back because he isn't an important person.

[MrTPlush]

It sounds like Wisconsin *only* added 35 cases since yesterday’s update. The state total is now at 416. That’s encouraging, right?

 

A bit over 24 hours later and it appears we sit at 457. This is an increase of 39.

 

Negative test count is at 8237.

 

506 according to this link.

 

https://www.tmj4.com/news/there-are-now-459-covid-cases-in-wisconsin

 

Still not growing exponentially, so that's good. Milwaukee and Madisom are obviously the problem areas as expected.

 

Guess it is too much to ask for DHS to have semi up to date numbers on their own site.

[jerichoholicninja]

It sounds like Wisconsin *only* added 35 cases since yesterday’s update. The state total is now at 416. That’s encouraging, right?

 

A bit over 24 hours later and it appears we sit at 457. This is an increase of 39.

 

Negative test count is at 8237.

 

According to the state, up to 1000 people could die in the next two weeks without more action. Assuming a mortality rate of 5% (which is quite on the high side) that would mean about 20,000 people infected. With so many people having it and not knowing it, not being tested, or not even being sick all these numbers are totally sketchy but 1000 deaths over two weeks seems borderline impossible. I understand taking this seriously but I feel so many people in charge are intentionally exaggerating things just to scare people into compliance. I suppose some may feel the ends justify the means but eventually the public is going to drown out officials out when they keep preaching apocalyptic disaster that never comes.

 

And the media...early on the headline was "Wisconsin COVID cases double" when they went from like 30 to 60 and then today it was "COVID cases now more than 450". Of course things can easily double at such small numbers and then when I saw the 450 headline I'm thinking that's like 30 more than yesterday.

[MrTPlush]

Still not as bad as the California governor claiming half the state was going to be infected in a matter of two weeks. That was about 100x the entire world had seen at that time in months.

[FVBrewerFan]

Except it's already approved by the FDA, and has been in use for many years. Even if it wasn't, what is the downside of giving dying people this drug? I understand clinical trials are needed to use it for this application on a mass basis, I don't understand why it's not an option for anyone dying, or even in critical condition. And again, this is a known drug, not experimental.

 

Its use as a treatment for COVID-19 is the definition of experimental.

 

Well, that's being argumentative for the sake of it. Obviously any treatment of C-19 is experimental at this point. But the drug itself is not experimental. It is FDA approved, and around for a long time. Supply would not be a problem if they wanted to go this route, there's only a limited supply because there's no demand yet.

 

Just watch. I predict we'll see really positive results in WA and NY, it will go into more widespread use and save a lot of lives. Then again, I feel optimistic today.

[PeaveyFury]

when they keep preaching apocalyptic disaster that never comes.

 

Or possibly, it doesn't come because the efforts are working?

[homer]

 

Guess it is too much to ask for DHS to have semi up to date numbers on their own site.

 

Looks like Milwaukee numbers are different. I am not 100% but I think they only update the DHS site once a day (or every other day) after the presser. Maybe Milwaukee released new numbers after the fact?

[nate82]

I believe most people are not adhering to the warnings of this virus because of the media. They have cried wolf so many times between 9/11 and now that people just blow them off as being overly dramatic.

[brwrsfan]

We have 457 people with confirmed positive tests, with what...less than 10 deaths right? How exactly are we going to get to ONE THOUSAND deaths in the next two weeks? Using those numbers, the amount of positive tests would have to multiple by FIFTY with the current death rate to reach 1000 deaths in two weeks. I'm sorry but I find that to be very difficult to believe.

 

I've said not to compare us to Italy, but it works in this scenario. Italy has 60 Million people, many of which are elder and a crazy high population density. They've had it way worse (for much longer already and have had 6000 deaths. Wisconsin has just about 6 million people...so with 1/10 of the population, we're suddenly going to not only pass their infection rate, but the death rate would have to be crazy high.

 

Don't take this the wrong way...I'm all for the social distancing but these numbers just simply don't compute. Even without social distancing, the death rate would have to be twice as bad as Italy's (which has been awful) to even come close to that. And as many on here have argued, the death rates are likely not anywhere near that high, simply due to lack of tests, lack of people getting tested with minimal or no symptoms, etc. It certainly feels like a scare tactic, which maybe it is, but at they seem very extreme and many people are going to see through them IMO.

 

Edit - I did this math in my head on the fly, so they may be off slightly, but the point remains the same.

[Fear The Chorizo]

This disease's hazard is how infectious it is, not its lethality...we will never know how many of the people who die after contracting this would have also been in trouble the next time they got influenza A or some other less infectious but widespread disease. It sucks because many more get infected much quicker with this disease and it overwhelms the health system in hardest hit areas.

 

When there are multiple reports and studies indicating most of those infected with covid-19 probably will never know it because they are asymptomatic, I'm just thankful its target population is not children or those with developing immune systems.

[homer]

I believe most people are not adhering to the warnings of this virus because of the media. They have cried wolf so many times between 9/11 and now that people just blow them off as being overly dramatic.

 

Then those lazy asses need to start listening to people other than the media. There are plenty of epidemiologists and infectious disease docs out there on Twitter and other places to get informed. If people don't want to do that then that's on them.

[superfly]

I believe most people are not adhering to the warnings of this virus becau mi in se of the media. They have cried wolf so many times between 9/11 and now that people just blow them off as being overly dramatic.

 

Then those lazy asses need to start listening to people other than the media. There are plenty of epidemiologists and infectious disease docs out there on Twitter and other places to get informed. If people don't want to do that then that's on them.

 

Correct. There are.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-turning-point-in-us-will-be-earlier-than-predicted-nobel-laureate-says/amp/#click=https://t.co/DFov9P4Rgy

 

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-covid-19-reality-national-lockdown-is-no-cure/?outputType=amp#click=https://t.co/tNoyMcLETo

[homer]

I believe most people are not adhering to the warnings of this virus becau mi in se of the media. They have cried wolf so many times between 9/11 and now that people just blow them off as being overly dramatic.

 

Then those lazy asses need to start listening to people other than the media. There are plenty of epidemiologists and infectious disease docs out there on Twitter and other places to get informed. If people don't want to do that then that's on them.

 

Correct. There are.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-turning-point-in-us-will-be-earlier-than-predicted-nobel-laureate-says/amp/#click=https://t.co/DFov9P4Rgy

 

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-covid-19-reality-national-lockdown-is-no-cure/?outputType=amp#click=https://t.co/tNoyMcLETo

 

It's actually kind of funny that you use media sources to prove your point. It's almost like the media is....not as biased as we are led to believe? And maybe if people actually read full articles instead of headlines and stopped watching cable TV chryons (or stopped watching cable tv news altogether) they'd realize that the Big Bad Media isn't really so bad?

 

And its great there are scientists who think it's not as big a deal as other people. More informed opinions the better. But you have to make sure you are ingesting their opinions as critically as you are the scientists who think it's a huge deal.

 

But I digress...

 

Go to the source. Don't read quotes in an article, read the whole interview verbatim.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Then those lazy asses need to start listening to people other than the media. There are plenty of epidemiologists and infectious disease docs out there on Twitter and other places to get informed. If people don't want to do that then that's on them.

 

Correct. There are.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-turning-point-in-us-will-be-earlier-than-predicted-nobel-laureate-says/amp/#click=https://t.co/DFov9P4Rgy

 

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/21/facing-covid-19-reality-national-lockdown-is-no-cure/?outputType=amp#click=https://t.co/tNoyMcLETo

 

It's actually kind of funny that you use media sources to prove your point. It's almost like the media is....not as biased as we are led to believe? And maybe if people actually read full articles instead of headlines and stopped watching cable TV chryons (or stopped watching cable tv news altogether) they'd realize that the Big Bad Media isn't really so bad?

 

And its great there are scientists who think it's not as big a deal as other people. More informed opinions the better. But you have to make sure you are ingesting their opinions as critically as you are the scientists who think it's a huge deal.

 

But I digress...

 

Go to the source. Don't read quotes in an article, read the whole interview verbatim.

 

It’s also worth noting that Michael Levitt (subject of the 1st linked article)notes that while he thinks the duration will be shorter than expected, that he is supportive of “aggressive public health measures” to stop it, as he agrees they work.

[igor67]

The question was asked why not just risk the cholorquine in very sick patients. xisxis addressed this with his biotech experience. But I'll try and be direct. Until you do the testing which is what they are doing you do not actually know if the drug is worse than the disease. Not everyone on respirators dies and I think it should be clear by how different the death rates seems to be in different locations that we currently have a poor understanding of the diseases mortality. Our experience with all manner of drugs is that there are unforseen effects and interactions. Sure chloroquine is FDA approved, but approval doesn't mean safe. Approval means in certain understood cases it is a better option than doing nothing. There is good stuff to read throughout, but the well documented side effects are towards the bottom. Keep in mind that these would be added onto the stress the patient is already suffering from the disease.

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/chloroquine-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20062834?p=1

[adambr2]

I just find any projection model to be almost totally useless for this. There are just way, way too many variables. We are trying to project activity for a virus that we don't even know everything about. There are just too many factors at play.

 

We'll be back to business as usual in 3 weeks or 18 months, depending on who you ask.