3 ms·

"Our paper, which had a global impact within 24 hours of publication, provides important support for the following crucial public health actions: vaccinate the

"Our paper, which had a global impact within 24 hours of publication, provides important support for the following crucial public health actions: vaccinate the unvaccinated ASAP; give boosters to all those who are eligible ASAP; maintain social and public health measures despite vaccination. Nowhere in this article are anti-viral treatments mentioned. While part of the arsenal may be vaccination, boosters and social distancing, why ignore the potential of anti-virals?[1][2] Surely they are an important part of the picture. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58764440 [2] https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/uk-government-secures-covid-19-antivirals-winter/ https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/uk-government...

thecleaner 5y ago
The study focussed on vaccinations from what I could tell. I don't think they were interested in treatments. Breaking transmission chains seems logical to me, vaccines are cheap and through prevention save the tax payer a lot of money.
- phillc73 5y ago
  True, the study did focus on vaccines, but I would have also thought perhaps a statement in that quoted paragraph along the lines of "And authorise available anti-viral treatments ASAP" would have brought a little more balance. I do wonder about, and would like to see, a calculation of the cost of widespread anti-viral availability versus the cost of vaccination programmes. The current global COVID-19 death rate is at around 2% of total infectious cases, or around 5 million people.[1] Vaccination will have by now certainly assisted in preventing this number being even higher. I wonder about the cost of producing and distributing globally 500 million anti-viral treatments, versus an also very high number of vaccines and the cost of education programmes prompting people to accept vaccination. Would the current pandemic situation (health and economic) be different if the early focus had have been on anti-viral treatments rather than vaccines? [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
  - ufo 5y ago
    Vaccines are dirt cheap. Just the cost of the covid test to diagnose covid (which is required before the appropriate anti-viral may be prescribed) is probably going to be more than the cost of a vaccine. > Would the current pandemic situation (health and economic) be different if the early focus had have been on anti-viral treatments rather than vaccines? For starters, there were no anti-viral medications that actually worked against COVID. And that was not due to lack of trying. Generally speaking, it is harder to develop a small-molecule antiviral medication than it is to develop an effective vaccine. For many viral diseases there are no drugs that work, or you need a cocktail of drugs at the same time.

thecleaner 5y ago

The study focussed on vaccinations from what I could tell. I don't think they were interested in treatments. Breaking transmission chains seems logical to me, vaccines are cheap and through prevention save the tax payer a lot of money.

phillc73 5y ago
True, the study did focus on vaccines, but I would have also thought perhaps a statement in that quoted paragraph along the lines of "And authorise available anti-viral treatments ASAP" would have brought a little more balance. I do wonder about, and would like to see, a calculation of the cost of widespread anti-viral availability versus the cost of vaccination programmes. The current global COVID-19 death rate is at around 2% of total infectious cases, or around 5 million people.[1] Vaccination will have by now certainly assisted in preventing this number being even higher. I wonder about the cost of producing and distributing globally 500 million anti-viral treatments, versus an also very high number of vaccines and the cost of education programmes prompting people to accept vaccination. Would the current pandemic situation (health and economic) be different if the early focus had have been on anti-viral treatments rather than vaccines? [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
- ufo 5y ago
  Vaccines are dirt cheap. Just the cost of the covid test to diagnose covid (which is required before the appropriate anti-viral may be prescribed) is probably going to be more than the cost of a vaccine. > Would the current pandemic situation (health and economic) be different if the early focus had have been on anti-viral treatments rather than vaccines? For starters, there were no anti-viral medications that actually worked against COVID. And that was not due to lack of trying. Generally speaking, it is harder to develop a small-molecule antiviral medication than it is to develop an effective vaccine. For many viral diseases there are no drugs that work, or you need a cocktail of drugs at the same time.