4 ms·
This paper has a good overview, they say the rate of adverse events is around 1/1700. So if it reduces your risk of death from respiratory failure in the next w
by ghufran_syed 7y ago
This paper has a good overview, they say the rate of adverse events is around 1/1700. So if it reduces your risk of death from respiratory failure in the next week by almost any positive amount, it's worth doing.
This is only going to be used in hospitalized patients who are already developing respiratory failure (low blood oxygen levels), not in random people off the street with a cough.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356109/#S1title https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356109/#S1titl...
- Retric 7y agoI agree with you, but here is a direct quote from the article: “it can be used for prevention of infection for people who are being exposed or it could be used for therapy for those who are sick.” This is not something to generally be handing out to people after simple exposure.
- rpedela 7y agoResearchers always talk about what could be but not necessarily what should be. Don't worry too much, in practice what you suggest will most likely happen.
- rsfern 7y agoI think your position is reasonable. In the full perspective article [0], they advocate more for using this treatment to keep medical professionals from succumbing from the disease until a vaccine can be developed. And they propose what seems like a pretty robust set of safety requirements [0]: https://www.jci.org/articles/view/138003 https://www.jci.org/articles/view/138003