4 ms·

I disagree. Drugs (given the number being tested, perhaps one or two candidates can emerge) can make the disease manageable and buy enough time for a vaccine wi

I disagree. Drugs (given the number being tested, perhaps one or two candidates can emerge) can make the disease manageable and buy enough time for a vaccine without causing any more lockdowns. Besides, closing schools in light of available evidence is... questionable, or moved not by science, but by the precautionary principle.

doliveira 6y ago
Honestly those drugs would have to have a pretty high efficacy to change the pandemic course by themselves. If they had, it would probably already be pretty clear even in preliminary studies.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  The time of administration matters as well. A lot of the early studies were made in high-severity, hospitalized cases. At that point, the results were mediocre if not totally ineffective (lopinavir/ritonavir, for example). It might be better early on, but there is yet a lack of trials for early administration of drugs. Stuff like the RECOVERY trial in the UK will be pivotal in telling which treatments work and which don't. Also I don't mean only repurposed drugs (aside the very debated HCQ, there's ivermectin that is worth at least looking at), but also new molecules made specifically to fight the disease (there are quite a few slated to start clinical testing this summer). Then "underdogs", like favipiravir, which apparently cuts the hospital stay time in half, but the few studies published aren't that great (no placebo, control is standard of care which means everything and nothing). I would also add that the lack of standardized protocols hurts a bit the interpretation of the studies. Take heparin for example, which is believed to drastically cut mortality (although the lone study published is full of confounding factors): different hospitals in different countries have different protocols of administration, further complicating things and making difficult to understand proper dosage, etc.

doliveira 6y ago

Honestly those drugs would have to have a pretty high efficacy to change the pandemic course by themselves. If they had, it would probably already be pretty clear even in preliminary studies.

lbeltrame 6y ago
The time of administration matters as well. A lot of the early studies were made in high-severity, hospitalized cases. At that point, the results were mediocre if not totally ineffective (lopinavir/ritonavir, for example). It might be better early on, but there is yet a lack of trials for early administration of drugs. Stuff like the RECOVERY trial in the UK will be pivotal in telling which treatments work and which don't. Also I don't mean only repurposed drugs (aside the very debated HCQ, there's ivermectin that is worth at least looking at), but also new molecules made specifically to fight the disease (there are quite a few slated to start clinical testing this summer). Then "underdogs", like favipiravir, which apparently cuts the hospital stay time in half, but the few studies published aren't that great (no placebo, control is standard of care which means everything and nothing). I would also add that the lack of standardized protocols hurts a bit the interpretation of the studies. Take heparin for example, which is believed to drastically cut mortality (although the lone study published is full of confounding factors): different hospitals in different countries have different protocols of administration, further complicating things and making difficult to understand proper dosage, etc.