3 ms·

Why is this drug less experimental than the vaccines?

tinus_hn 5y ago
That is a valid question but another thing to note is that you wouldn’t be giving this drug to the vast majority of people who do not get any symptoms from a Covid-19 infection. Nor would you be forcing people to take this drug.
- ralmeida 5y ago
  Which is a fair viewpoint from the societal level, but not as much for the individual level, which was implied in the parent message - i.e. how can "I'll take experimental treatment B instead of experimental treatment A" be an argument for not taking experimental treatments in general?
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Imagine both the vaccine and the drug offer the same protection, and both come with a risk of 0.00001 that you will die from taking it. Considering not everyone who gets infected gets symptoms, would it be illogical to not take the vaccine, just in case you get infected and get symptoms, but to take the drug once you do get infected and get symptoms?
    - ralmeida 5y ago
      It wouldn't be necessarily illogical but would still qualify as "taking part in an experiment trial", as put by the parent post. To determine if this is a rational strategy or not, we'd have to get real numbers (is it really likely that 1 in 100k people die from taking the vaccine?), and compare that against the reduction in probability of dying from COVID by even combining both treatments.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        It is still possible to take rational decisions in the face of unknowns. Just like you probably decided, in your opinion rationally, to take the vaccine even though there really isn’t a whole lot of data available as they are pretty new. And please, I just made up these numbers to answer the posed question: > how can "I'll take experimental treatment B instead of experimental treatment A" be an argument
  - unanswered 5y ago
    For an individual, the antiviral is better because it means they don't need to take the vaccine with any possible risks, however small, up front. Yes once an individual become symptomatic with covid-19, they're forced to be exposed to one of the risks, but at that point the antiviral is the only choice. In short, it allows an individual to delay taking the unknown risk until there's an actual known downside to not taking it; i.e. unmitigated covid symptoms. Most people will never be exposed to that downside anyways.
    - ralmeida 5y ago
      From a "reducing my risk of dying" perspective, you'd have to balance the risk of dying from taking the vaccine vs the risk of dying from COVID with zero treatments, one treatment, or both treatments. The numbers could lean either way and would be very sensitive to variations in the probabilities involved - I'm sure it would be very hard to reach any form of consensus on "probability of dying from taking the vaccine". It's also worth addressing wasn't even making the point of which (so-called) experimental treatment has a better likely outcome but rather addressing criticism at (so-called) experimental treatments in general. From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks.
      - unanswered 5y ago
        > From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks. That would not factor into a correct analysis: the unknown risks of covid are the same whether or not you get vaccinated (or any other treatment) because by definition the vaccine has not been shown to mitigate the unknown risks.
cies 5y ago
mRNA treatment is now also called a vaccine. That type of treatment has never been used on the general population until c19 came along and testing standards were reduced. It is a very interesting type of new treatment, but we lack long term data to say it's truly safe. Same can be said for any patented-molecule treatment. But that's just a new type of molecule, not a whole other type of treatment. Hence I'd say that molecule-drugs are less experimental than mRNA-vaccine jabs.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  This isn't meant to be a jab or insinuation about you in particular, but: what about an Adenovirus vaccine? You can still (AFAIK) get the J&J vaccine in the US, and the AZ vaccine in most of the rest of the world. I'd argue that mRNA vaccine development represents the most rigorous that the field of vaccinology has ever been, but those (Adenovirus) vaccines use a well tested, not-previously-experimental delivery technology. Do you have an objection to them?
- ralmeida 5y ago
  Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease", which in my view would fit the Pfizer/Moderna shots. Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"?
  - cies 5y ago
    Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?), Webster did change it: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 > Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. I know. > Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? It's all marketing at this point. mRNA-treatment does not sell. Vaccine elicits people's trust, and obedience. > would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending" > And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"? These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months. They skipped some steps in the process. Understandable, but still...

That is a valid question but another thing to note is that you wouldn’t be giving this drug to the vast majority of people who do not get any symptoms from a Covid-19 infection. Nor would you be forcing people to take this drug.

ralmeida 5y ago
Which is a fair viewpoint from the societal level, but not as much for the individual level, which was implied in the parent message - i.e. how can "I'll take experimental treatment B instead of experimental treatment A" be an argument for not taking experimental treatments in general?
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Imagine both the vaccine and the drug offer the same protection, and both come with a risk of 0.00001 that you will die from taking it. Considering not everyone who gets infected gets symptoms, would it be illogical to not take the vaccine, just in case you get infected and get symptoms, but to take the drug once you do get infected and get symptoms?
  - ralmeida 5y ago
    It wouldn't be necessarily illogical but would still qualify as "taking part in an experiment trial", as put by the parent post. To determine if this is a rational strategy or not, we'd have to get real numbers (is it really likely that 1 in 100k people die from taking the vaccine?), and compare that against the reduction in probability of dying from COVID by even combining both treatments.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      It is still possible to take rational decisions in the face of unknowns. Just like you probably decided, in your opinion rationally, to take the vaccine even though there really isn’t a whole lot of data available as they are pretty new. And please, I just made up these numbers to answer the posed question: > how can "I'll take experimental treatment B instead of experimental treatment A" be an argument
- unanswered 5y ago
  For an individual, the antiviral is better because it means they don't need to take the vaccine with any possible risks, however small, up front. Yes once an individual become symptomatic with covid-19, they're forced to be exposed to one of the risks, but at that point the antiviral is the only choice. In short, it allows an individual to delay taking the unknown risk until there's an actual known downside to not taking it; i.e. unmitigated covid symptoms. Most people will never be exposed to that downside anyways.
  - ralmeida 5y ago
    From a "reducing my risk of dying" perspective, you'd have to balance the risk of dying from taking the vaccine vs the risk of dying from COVID with zero treatments, one treatment, or both treatments. The numbers could lean either way and would be very sensitive to variations in the probabilities involved - I'm sure it would be very hard to reach any form of consensus on "probability of dying from taking the vaccine". It's also worth addressing wasn't even making the point of which (so-called) experimental treatment has a better likely outcome but rather addressing criticism at (so-called) experimental treatments in general. From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks.
    - unanswered 5y ago
      > From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks. That would not factor into a correct analysis: the unknown risks of covid are the same whether or not you get vaccinated (or any other treatment) because by definition the vaccine has not been shown to mitigate the unknown risks.

cies 5y ago

mRNA treatment is now also called a vaccine. That type of treatment has never been used on the general population until c19 came along and testing standards were reduced. It is a very interesting type of new treatment, but we lack long term data to say it's truly safe. Same can be said for any patented-molecule treatment. But that's just a new type of molecule, not a whole other type of treatment. Hence I'd say that molecule-drugs are less experimental than mRNA-vaccine jabs.

woodruffw 5y ago
This isn't meant to be a jab or insinuation about you in particular, but: what about an Adenovirus vaccine? You can still (AFAIK) get the J&J vaccine in the US, and the AZ vaccine in most of the rest of the world. I'd argue that mRNA vaccine development represents the most rigorous that the field of vaccinology has ever been, but those (Adenovirus) vaccines use a well tested, not-previously-experimental delivery technology. Do you have an objection to them?
ralmeida 5y ago
Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease", which in my view would fit the Pfizer/Moderna shots. Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"?
- cies 5y ago
  Maybe wikipedia also changed it (did you check?), Webster did change it: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50886 > Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID. I know. > Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into? It's all marketing at this point. mRNA-treatment does not sell. Vaccine elicits people's trust, and obedience. > would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending" > And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"? These kind of drugs take years to develop. This stuff was done in a few months. They skipped some steps in the process. Understandable, but still...