3 ms·

This is a worthless 2nd hand hearsay anecdote. Remdesivir has a minor beneficial impact when delivered VERY EARLY. No need to spread FUD when there's clinical

This is a worthless 2nd hand hearsay anecdote. Remdesivir has a minor beneficial impact when delivered VERY EARLY. No need to spread FUD when there's clinical data available.

dralley 6y ago
>Remdesivir has a minor beneficial impact when delivered VERY EARLY. There's still a couple of problems though: * It has to be delivered by IV drip * It's in short supply * It's expensive Which means that realistically, the only way to get a positive impact from it would be to send high-risk patients who were very likely to have just been exposed to the hospital for the injection. Even then, the risk-value proposition does not seem that great.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  None of these three points is the bottleneck. It's still easy to give someone an IV early on if they're in a high-risk group, it's not in that short supply, and at ~$2500 per treatment regimen it's not that expensive compared to an extended hospital stay. The bottleneck is that it's only slightly effective.
- ulfw 6y ago
  It’ll be a means for the rich to lessen their pain. Nothing more. Let’s be honest. No hospital would take you in on slight symptoms. The drug alone costs $3,000+, it’s basically US-only and thus needs to be administered there, which will end up costing about as much again. See the top 0.01% hold some remdesivir in their mansions for their private physician to administer.
cannedslime 6y ago
Yes a minor impact, that doesn't really show that it saves lives at all. Just that generally those who take the drug early on are out of bed a couple of days earlier than others. Not really worth 2000USD a pop. Sounds like a big pharma scam to me. Same with the Chloroquin
plicense 6y ago
Can you point me to the results from the clinical trial? I wasn't trying to spread FUD. I did state that the arrests weren't because of the drug.

3 ms·

This is a worthless 2nd hand hearsay anecdote. Remdesivir has a minor beneficial impact when delivered VERY EARLY. No need to spread FUD when there's clinical

by koheripbal 6y ago

This is a worthless 2nd hand hearsay anecdote. Remdesivir has a minor beneficial impact when delivered VERY EARLY. No need to spread FUD when there's clinical data available.

dralley 6y ago
>Remdesivir has a minor beneficial impact when delivered VERY EARLY. There's still a couple of problems though: * It has to be delivered by IV drip * It's in short supply * It's expensive Which means that realistically, the only way to get a positive impact from it would be to send high-risk patients who were very likely to have just been exposed to the hospital for the injection. Even then, the risk-value proposition does not seem that great.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  None of these three points is the bottleneck. It's still easy to give someone an IV early on if they're in a high-risk group, it's not in that short supply, and at ~$2500 per treatment regimen it's not that expensive compared to an extended hospital stay. The bottleneck is that it's only slightly effective.
- ulfw 6y ago
  It’ll be a means for the rich to lessen their pain. Nothing more. Let’s be honest. No hospital would take you in on slight symptoms. The drug alone costs $3,000+, it’s basically US-only and thus needs to be administered there, which will end up costing about as much again. See the top 0.01% hold some remdesivir in their mansions for their private physician to administer.
cannedslime 6y ago
Yes a minor impact, that doesn't really show that it saves lives at all. Just that generally those who take the drug early on are out of bed a couple of days earlier than others. Not really worth 2000USD a pop. Sounds like a big pharma scam to me. Same with the Chloroquin
plicense 6y ago
Can you point me to the results from the clinical trial? I wasn't trying to spread FUD. I did state that the arrests weren't because of the drug.