5 ms·

> There were six hospitalizations and no deaths among the 607 patients who received Paxlovid within five days of symptom onset, compared to 41 hospitalizations

by brink 5y ago

> There were six hospitalizations and no deaths among the 607 patients who received Paxlovid within five days of symptom onset, compared to 41 hospitalizations and 10 deaths in the placebo cohort. How does this work? You sign up for the program when you're sick and you might get meds that help you? That would really suck if a loved one was in the program and died because they happened to get the placebo.

imeron 5y ago
Standard double blind trial protocol: you sign up for the trial. You might get the actual drug or you might get placebo. It's double blind because not even the doctor knows who gets what.
jeffbee 5y ago
They randomly assign people to the control or treatment cohort. Don’t forget there’s also the chance that the treatment gives patients liver cancer or some other yet-unknown adverse outcomes.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kenjackson 5y ago
It’s a trial. That’s not how they distribute it outside of a trial.
kibwen 5y ago
> That would really suck if a loved one was in the program and died because they happened to get the placebo. Trials like this are performed in desperate situations, and you only ever hear about the success stories. Most such trials probably result in no measurable benefit, and run the risk of an even worse outcome than the placebo.
tinus_hn 5y ago
The alternative is what we have right now, ‘scientists’ blathering about their assumptions with the constant disclaimer that nobody really knows for real. Real science does have a price.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > Real science does have a price. I'm not following. Are you under the impression that the COVID-19 vaccine trials weren't similarly double blinded?
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    No, I am talking about ‘scientists’ telling others that Covid-19 is magically limited to a 1.5m or 6 feet circle (depending in which country you live). Or that they have to be really careful outside, and that it’s more safe to not go for a walk and fatten up in front of the TV. Or that ‘covid 0’ is a valid policy and that if it doesn’t work it is the fault of this week’s scapegoat. And then censoring anyone who would dare to point out the lack of logic.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Nobody, and I mean nobody, genuinely believes that COVID-19 can't be spread when social distancing measures are perfectly observed. The 1.5m/6ft distance was chosen based on both epidemiological models that show statistical decreases in contagion and the political reality that people (understandably) get very upset the more you ask them to stay away from other people. The rest of your post doesn't reflect any government position that I'm currently aware of. Both my local government and the CDC encouraged me to go outside, while maintaining distancing, after the initial lockdown.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        The US is not the world and really, a lot of people have made a lot of truly strange statements. I have seen plenty of scientists with all kinds of statements, the worst being ‘oh if you got infected, it’s your own fault because you clearly didn’t stay 1.5 m from other people. Because otherwise it is impossible to get infected!’
stephen_g 5y ago
Well, the other possibility is the drug could turn out to have severe side effects including death, so either way you take a risk. If it does conclusively show effectiveness quite quickly, often they will cut the phase of the trial short and put everybody on the actual drug I think.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
Keep in mind, it can go the other way as well. That the drug leads to worse outcomes than a placebo. This is why there are trials. This is why they are voluntary.
brianmcc 5y ago
It's unusual but not unheard of for trials to be stopped ahead of schedule because of this - the treatment is so clearly and substantially beneficial it's considered unethical to continue depriving the control group of the treatment. When to Stop a Clinical Trial Early for Benefit: Lessons Learned and Future Approaches: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111.965707 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111...
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  In this case the alternative to the trial would be the ‘dangerous’ option of no treatment. So that doesn’t really apply here.
  - putnambr 5y ago
    How does it not apply here? Are you saying that no treatment (right now there are no standards of care for COVID-19) is not dangerous? If I recall correctly, that option is leading to people dying.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Read again. > In this case the alternative to the trial would be the […] option of no treatment So the alternative is what we do now, which indeed is the ‘dangerous’ option.

by brink 5y ago

imeron 5y ago

Standard double blind trial protocol: you sign up for the trial. You might get the actual drug or you might get placebo. It's double blind because not even the doctor knows who gets what.

jeffbee 5y ago

They randomly assign people to the control or treatment cohort. Don’t forget there’s also the chance that the treatment gives patients liver cancer or some other yet-unknown adverse outcomes.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kenjackson 5y ago

It’s a trial. That’s not how they distribute it outside of a trial.

kibwen 5y ago

> That would really suck if a loved one was in the program and died because they happened to get the placebo. Trials like this are performed in desperate situations, and you only ever hear about the success stories. Most such trials probably result in no measurable benefit, and run the risk of an even worse outcome than the placebo.

tinus_hn 5y ago

The alternative is what we have right now, ‘scientists’ blathering about their assumptions with the constant disclaimer that nobody really knows for real. Real science does have a price.

woodruffw 5y ago
> Real science does have a price. I'm not following. Are you under the impression that the COVID-19 vaccine trials weren't similarly double blinded?
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  No, I am talking about ‘scientists’ telling others that Covid-19 is magically limited to a 1.5m or 6 feet circle (depending in which country you live). Or that they have to be really careful outside, and that it’s more safe to not go for a walk and fatten up in front of the TV. Or that ‘covid 0’ is a valid policy and that if it doesn’t work it is the fault of this week’s scapegoat. And then censoring anyone who would dare to point out the lack of logic.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Nobody, and I mean nobody, genuinely believes that COVID-19 can't be spread when social distancing measures are perfectly observed. The 1.5m/6ft distance was chosen based on both epidemiological models that show statistical decreases in contagion and the political reality that people (understandably) get very upset the more you ask them to stay away from other people. The rest of your post doesn't reflect any government position that I'm currently aware of. Both my local government and the CDC encouraged me to go outside, while maintaining distancing, after the initial lockdown.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      The US is not the world and really, a lot of people have made a lot of truly strange statements. I have seen plenty of scientists with all kinds of statements, the worst being ‘oh if you got infected, it’s your own fault because you clearly didn’t stay 1.5 m from other people. Because otherwise it is impossible to get infected!’

stephen_g 5y ago

Well, the other possibility is the drug could turn out to have severe side effects including death, so either way you take a risk. If it does conclusively show effectiveness quite quickly, often they will cut the phase of the trial short and put everybody on the actual drug I think.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

Keep in mind, it can go the other way as well. That the drug leads to worse outcomes than a placebo. This is why there are trials. This is why they are voluntary.

brianmcc 5y ago

It's unusual but not unheard of for trials to be stopped ahead of schedule because of this - the treatment is so clearly and substantially beneficial it's considered unethical to continue depriving the control group of the treatment. When to Stop a Clinical Trial Early for Benefit: Lessons Learned and Future Approaches: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111.965707 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111...

tinus_hn 5y ago
In this case the alternative to the trial would be the ‘dangerous’ option of no treatment. So that doesn’t really apply here.
- putnambr 5y ago
  How does it not apply here? Are you saying that no treatment (right now there are no standards of care for COVID-19) is not dangerous? If I recall correctly, that option is leading to people dying.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Read again. > In this case the alternative to the trial would be the […] option of no treatment So the alternative is what we do now, which indeed is the ‘dangerous’ option.