7 ms·

> A full course, which needs to start within five days of the appearance of symptoms, consists of forty pills—four capsules taken twice a day, for five days. I

> A full course, which needs to start within five days of the appearance of symptoms, consists of forty pills—four capsules taken twice a day, for five days. I don't understand the logic involved here. Why would anyone be willing to take 40 pills for 5 days straight but unwilling to get a vaccine shot?

nradov 5y ago
I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated, but vaccines don't reliably prevent infection. Many vaccinated people get infected, and some fraction of those experience severe symptoms. Especially older patients with other medical conditions. So it's good to have additional therapies.
- holonomically 5y ago
  I've repeatedly said in this thread that the vaccine preps the immune system so that the body is able to fight off the real virus because it has already been prepped ahead of time. No vaccine can ever prevent infection because that's not how immune systems work. Being vaccinated does not prevent inhaling live viral particles. I'm curious to know why you think being infected even after vaccination is such a big deal?
  - nradov 5y ago
    Did you even read my comment? For most patients, COVID-19 isn't a big deal. However some vaccinated patients do suffer severe symptoms or death. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00558-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... You appear to be dangerously ignorant of how vaccines work. Obviously no vaccine can prevent exposure. However many other vaccines such as that for measles are highly sterilizing, in that they prevent the virus from establishing an active infection in the body. Unfortunately the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines aren't sterilizing to any significant extent.
    - holonomically 5y ago
      I really like how you hedge that mRNA vaccines aren't "sterilizing to any significant extent" as if that invalidates what I said because obviously there is no such thing as a sterilizing vaccine. [1] All vaccines simply generate an immune response and don't confer magical powers on the immune system like preventing infections. Anyone with basic understanding of biology can derive that conclusion from first principles about viruses and immune systems. Here are the actual stats in the US on how many people have died after vaccination > Since more than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the USA, this data reflects a vaccination-death ratio of 0.0018%. [2] You can compare that to all other risk factor for death if you want but it turns out that getting the vaccine is basically the single most effective way of preventing death from a novel and highly contagious airborne respiratory virus. But you're entitled to your opinions. To each their own I guess. 1: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz... 2: https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-relat...
      - nradov 5y ago
        You seem to be intentionally dense. The vaccines have are highly effective in preventing deaths for most people, but not all. Thus additional treatments are still needed. If you still can't understand such a basic concept then I don't know how else to explain it.
        holonomically 5y ago
        This treatment is after they get infected. Do you understand what that means? There is no causal chain of events where the pills are better than the vaccine. If the vaccine kills you then so will the virus. If the vaccine doesn't kill you then your chances of death are now significantly lower. You are more likely to die in a car crash than from the vaccine. All the pills are going to do is convince some suckers to pay up for a treatment that they could have avoided if they'd gotten a free vaccine. There are no situations in which the pills are any better, all they do is lower the chances of death when people inevitably get infected because they refused to get the vaccine. At best the pills are a palliative measure which I guess is better than nothing but is not a substitute for a vaccine. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. We're not getting anywhere. These pills are not even a long term solution. Repeatedly using them introduces mutations in human DNA: > A drug that’s so good at messing with viral RNA has led some to ask whether it messes with human DNA, too. (Merck’s trial excluded pregnant and breast-feeding women, and women of childbearing age had to be on contraceptives.) This is a long-standing concern about antiviral drugs that introduce genomic errors. A recent study suggests that molnupiravir, taken at high doses and for extended periods, can, in fact, introduce mutations into DNA. So every dosing regiment of the pills means you are upping your chances of getting cancer. This is exactly the type of trade-off I would expect to be made by people who have no clue how vaccines work.
pwg 5y ago
Possibly the difference between "I (metaphorical "I") don't think I will encounter it." vs. "Oh ...., I have contracted a case of it from somewhere."? Many often change their attitude when things go from "an unknown risk of possible future encounter" to "certain to have contracted".
- holonomically 5y ago
  The virus is endemic so we're already in the certain scenario. That's why I don't understand the logic of people that refuse vaccination. You can either take 40 pills for 5 days or you can get vaccinated and avoid the hassle entirely. Deferring the decision just guarantees you will take the 40 pills, there is no way to avoid contracting the virus anymore.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Or you can do neither and if you are otherwise healthy it isn't much to worry about. Conversely, people with other health problems or who are terrified of covid might get both.
    - holonomically 5y ago
      Being otherwise healthy is no guarantee that you are not genetically susceptible to cytokine storm reaction to the virus. The vaccine preps the immune system to avoid over-reacting, whether you are otherwise healthy or not does not really make a difference because no one can control their genetics and how it will interact with novel viruses. [1] 1: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2026131 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2026131
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Being otherwise healthy is a massive factor in outcome though, and reduces the risk an order of magnitude or so, to levels many people don't care about very much.
smt88 5y ago
It is a lot easier to get someone to take drugs when they're feeling sick than when they're feeling healthy.
- holonomically 5y ago
  Seems very irrational but I agree it explains the logic of the people who are hopeful they are somehow immune to getting sick from an endemic virus.
- rkk3 5y ago
  as YC says, better to sell a pain-killer than a vitamin
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Right. And vaccination won't help very much if they change their mind after they get sick.
coolso 5y ago
Two huge reasons: one, ingesting a potentially harmful substance has almost always been considered far less dangerous than getting it injected into you. Hence aversion to needles, blood, etc. Ever seen COPS? Even the most experienced police officer will “freak” at the sight or suspicion of a needle and everything changes. Secondly, and this one applied to me: given how new the vaccine is, and the slight chance of heart inflammation and blood clotting among other things, many people would rather passively get COVID through no fault of their own, and very likely recover from it easily like most, rather than purposefully get a shot which means they’re directly playing a role in, in their mind, potentially bringing harm to themselves. I waited 8 months of general availability of the vax, and then I was comfortable enough with the (lack of) side effects to overcome fear #2.
- holonomically 5y ago
  I guess that makes sense but the side-effects seem overblown in my opinion. Even with being susceptible to the side-effects it is very unlikely that catching the virus unwittingly is going to be better. I haven't found any studies on comparative outcomes with respect to the virus vs the vaccine when it comes to side-effects but whatever I could find so far indicates that for those that are susceptible to the side-effects of the vaccine the virus is much worse because it attacks all tissues indiscriminately. [1] 1: https://epi.ufl.edu/articles/covid-19-blood-vessel-damage.html https://epi.ufl.edu/articles/covid-19-blood-vessel-damage.ht...
  - coolso 5y ago
    Well, hindsight is 20/20. Speaking to my own thought process, many a drug/theory scientists were “sure” about, until it turned out they were wrong. Couple that with the fact I know closely plenty of people who got the Wuhan coronavirus and weren’t vaccinated, and it was like a typical cold for them, with sone slight difference like temporary loss of smell. But, I also knew a couple family/friends of friends who were older and obese who were hospitalized from it. I agree that the side effects are overblown. But so is much of the hand wringing over getting the vaccine or not getting it.
angelzen 5y ago
For example because some got the vaccine shot and got infected too? The vaccine offers middling protection against infection.
rsynnott 5y ago
There's nothing like an imminent meeting with a ventilator to concentrate one's mind. Obviously, also, there are breakthrough cases, though most which result in hospitalization are in immunocompromised people; not sure if they've trialed this for them or not. At any rate it would be better than nothing.
- holonomically 5y ago
  Ya, I wasn't thinking about the death angle but you make a good point about tests in immunocompromised individuals. The article mentions the drug is basically a mutagen so in theory it is supposed to work in cases where the vaccine would be too risky but then I have to wonder how quickly a person is supposed to go on the regimen before the viral load is too great for the mutagen to make a difference. Basically this only works when you are already sick and in no other cases because then you're just dosing yourself with a mutagen.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    > it is supposed to work in cases where the vaccine would be too risky It's very, very unusual that someone can't be given any of the covid vaccines (in general, even if you're allergic to the ingredients in one, another will be suitable). Immunocompromised people are generally vaccinated (they're one of the first groups that most countries did) but it's questionable how effective the vaccine is in them; it is, at best, likely less effective than in the general population. And, certainly, in heavily vaccinated countries, ICUs are largely a mix of the few unvaccinated, and vaccinated people who are either immunocompromised or have very severe health problems. Antivirals have an obvious role to play, there.
    - holonomically 5y ago
      Good points.

nradov 5y ago

I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated, but vaccines don't reliably prevent infection. Many vaccinated people get infected, and some fraction of those experience severe symptoms. Especially older patients with other medical conditions. So it's good to have additional therapies.

holonomically 5y ago
I've repeatedly said in this thread that the vaccine preps the immune system so that the body is able to fight off the real virus because it has already been prepped ahead of time. No vaccine can ever prevent infection because that's not how immune systems work. Being vaccinated does not prevent inhaling live viral particles. I'm curious to know why you think being infected even after vaccination is such a big deal?
- nradov 5y ago
  Did you even read my comment? For most patients, COVID-19 isn't a big deal. However some vaccinated patients do suffer severe symptoms or death. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00558-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... You appear to be dangerously ignorant of how vaccines work. Obviously no vaccine can prevent exposure. However many other vaccines such as that for measles are highly sterilizing, in that they prevent the virus from establishing an active infection in the body. Unfortunately the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines aren't sterilizing to any significant extent.
  - holonomically 5y ago
    I really like how you hedge that mRNA vaccines aren't "sterilizing to any significant extent" as if that invalidates what I said because obviously there is no such thing as a sterilizing vaccine. [1] All vaccines simply generate an immune response and don't confer magical powers on the immune system like preventing infections. Anyone with basic understanding of biology can derive that conclusion from first principles about viruses and immune systems. Here are the actual stats in the US on how many people have died after vaccination > Since more than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the USA, this data reflects a vaccination-death ratio of 0.0018%. [2] You can compare that to all other risk factor for death if you want but it turns out that getting the vaccine is basically the single most effective way of preventing death from a novel and highly contagious airborne respiratory virus. But you're entitled to your opinions. To each their own I guess. 1: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz... 2: https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-relat...
    - nradov 5y ago
      You seem to be intentionally dense. The vaccines have are highly effective in preventing deaths for most people, but not all. Thus additional treatments are still needed. If you still can't understand such a basic concept then I don't know how else to explain it.
      - holonomically 5y ago
        This treatment is after they get infected. Do you understand what that means? There is no causal chain of events where the pills are better than the vaccine. If the vaccine kills you then so will the virus. If the vaccine doesn't kill you then your chances of death are now significantly lower. You are more likely to die in a car crash than from the vaccine. All the pills are going to do is convince some suckers to pay up for a treatment that they could have avoided if they'd gotten a free vaccine. There are no situations in which the pills are any better, all they do is lower the chances of death when people inevitably get infected because they refused to get the vaccine. At best the pills are a palliative measure which I guess is better than nothing but is not a substitute for a vaccine. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. We're not getting anywhere. These pills are not even a long term solution. Repeatedly using them introduces mutations in human DNA: > A drug that’s so good at messing with viral RNA has led some to ask whether it messes with human DNA, too. (Merck’s trial excluded pregnant and breast-feeding women, and women of childbearing age had to be on contraceptives.) This is a long-standing concern about antiviral drugs that introduce genomic errors. A recent study suggests that molnupiravir, taken at high doses and for extended periods, can, in fact, introduce mutations into DNA. So every dosing regiment of the pills means you are upping your chances of getting cancer. This is exactly the type of trade-off I would expect to be made by people who have no clue how vaccines work.

pwg 5y ago

Possibly the difference between "I (metaphorical "I") don't think I will encounter it." vs. "Oh ...., I have contracted a case of it from somewhere."? Many often change their attitude when things go from "an unknown risk of possible future encounter" to "certain to have contracted".

holonomically 5y ago
The virus is endemic so we're already in the certain scenario. That's why I don't understand the logic of people that refuse vaccination. You can either take 40 pills for 5 days or you can get vaccinated and avoid the hassle entirely. Deferring the decision just guarantees you will take the 40 pills, there is no way to avoid contracting the virus anymore.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Or you can do neither and if you are otherwise healthy it isn't much to worry about. Conversely, people with other health problems or who are terrified of covid might get both.
  - holonomically 5y ago
    Being otherwise healthy is no guarantee that you are not genetically susceptible to cytokine storm reaction to the virus. The vaccine preps the immune system to avoid over-reacting, whether you are otherwise healthy or not does not really make a difference because no one can control their genetics and how it will interact with novel viruses. [1] 1: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2026131 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2026131
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Being otherwise healthy is a massive factor in outcome though, and reduces the risk an order of magnitude or so, to levels many people don't care about very much.

smt88 5y ago

It is a lot easier to get someone to take drugs when they're feeling sick than when they're feeling healthy.

holonomically 5y ago
Seems very irrational but I agree it explains the logic of the people who are hopeful they are somehow immune to getting sick from an endemic virus.
rkk3 5y ago
as YC says, better to sell a pain-killer than a vitamin
maxerickson 5y ago
Right. And vaccination won't help very much if they change their mind after they get sick.

coolso 5y ago

Two huge reasons: one, ingesting a potentially harmful substance has almost always been considered far less dangerous than getting it injected into you. Hence aversion to needles, blood, etc. Ever seen COPS? Even the most experienced police officer will “freak” at the sight or suspicion of a needle and everything changes. Secondly, and this one applied to me: given how new the vaccine is, and the slight chance of heart inflammation and blood clotting among other things, many people would rather passively get COVID through no fault of their own, and very likely recover from it easily like most, rather than purposefully get a shot which means they’re directly playing a role in, in their mind, potentially bringing harm to themselves. I waited 8 months of general availability of the vax, and then I was comfortable enough with the (lack of) side effects to overcome fear #2.

holonomically 5y ago
I guess that makes sense but the side-effects seem overblown in my opinion. Even with being susceptible to the side-effects it is very unlikely that catching the virus unwittingly is going to be better. I haven't found any studies on comparative outcomes with respect to the virus vs the vaccine when it comes to side-effects but whatever I could find so far indicates that for those that are susceptible to the side-effects of the vaccine the virus is much worse because it attacks all tissues indiscriminately. [1] 1: https://epi.ufl.edu/articles/covid-19-blood-vessel-damage.html https://epi.ufl.edu/articles/covid-19-blood-vessel-damage.ht...
- coolso 5y ago
  Well, hindsight is 20/20. Speaking to my own thought process, many a drug/theory scientists were “sure” about, until it turned out they were wrong. Couple that with the fact I know closely plenty of people who got the Wuhan coronavirus and weren’t vaccinated, and it was like a typical cold for them, with sone slight difference like temporary loss of smell. But, I also knew a couple family/friends of friends who were older and obese who were hospitalized from it. I agree that the side effects are overblown. But so is much of the hand wringing over getting the vaccine or not getting it.

angelzen 5y ago

For example because some got the vaccine shot and got infected too? The vaccine offers middling protection against infection.

rsynnott 5y ago

There's nothing like an imminent meeting with a ventilator to concentrate one's mind. Obviously, also, there are breakthrough cases, though most which result in hospitalization are in immunocompromised people; not sure if they've trialed this for them or not. At any rate it would be better than nothing.

holonomically 5y ago
Ya, I wasn't thinking about the death angle but you make a good point about tests in immunocompromised individuals. The article mentions the drug is basically a mutagen so in theory it is supposed to work in cases where the vaccine would be too risky but then I have to wonder how quickly a person is supposed to go on the regimen before the viral load is too great for the mutagen to make a difference. Basically this only works when you are already sick and in no other cases because then you're just dosing yourself with a mutagen.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  > it is supposed to work in cases where the vaccine would be too risky It's very, very unusual that someone can't be given any of the covid vaccines (in general, even if you're allergic to the ingredients in one, another will be suitable). Immunocompromised people are generally vaccinated (they're one of the first groups that most countries did) but it's questionable how effective the vaccine is in them; it is, at best, likely less effective than in the general population. And, certainly, in heavily vaccinated countries, ICUs are largely a mix of the few unvaccinated, and vaccinated people who are either immunocompromised or have very severe health problems. Antivirals have an obvious role to play, there.
  - holonomically 5y ago
    Good points.