What if there is no cure?

CelticRambler

hmmm wrote: »

Testing on animals is normal before proceeding with human trials.

You seem to be arguing that the NIH (even better - the NIAID led by Fauci), a completely independent US regulatory body, has deliberately fabricated test results on behalf of a UK laboratory for a different virus for a reason I can't properly comprehend.

Yeah, I know how testing works. Regardless of hmmm's doubt, I have a French government-issued habilitation that puts me in a prime position in this regard. :cool:

But there's no need for conspiracy theories: I've lived and worked with coronaviruses (amongst others) for almost thirty years, and alongside people who've been reduced to tears at seeing all their work collapse into insignificance, either because politics/economics change the rules, or because they've failled to fully appreciate a key aspect of the problem they've been working on, or simply because mother nature can sometimes be a real bitch.

CP Grey has a good video on why published research shouldn't necessarily be viewed too optimistically.

CelticRambler

Hmmzis wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a long lasting effect to be useful, we get flu shots every year. If we have to get a shot for this every year or two, I'd say plenty of people will be up for it since this is way more dangerous that the flu.

The flu vaccine doesn't kill you by triggering your immune system into a "cytokine storm".

Hmmzis wrote: »

Regarding the money thing, if SARS-cov-2 causes countries to keep shutting down and constantly battling the spread of the infections, there will be money thrown at this in rather large amounts.

It won't. Once it's relatively easy to stop people from dying (through conventional medicine), there won't be any greater justification for a lockdown than there was last year.

ek motor

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the same was as SARS-CoV-1 and MERS and other viruses that never made the news because they didn't affect people who'd been partying in the Alps, or sharing the airspace at sporting and religious events.



Weeks and months, not years. The details of one such protocol should be published "very soon" - the data is being peer reviewed right now.

Thats debateable , SARS-CoV-1 certainly 'made the news' at the time. Also , there were only 8,000 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-1 and 2,500 of MERS, currently there are over 3 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 with almost every country in the world affected. The idea that it will simply 'fade away' is not credible.

ek motor

Ciaranis wrote: »

Do you have a link for this? I'm a layman but everything I've read suggests it is relatively stable so far. I have read about 2 possible strains. Perhaps this is out of date.

There are over 30 mutations circulating


https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/coronavirus-already-mutated-30-strains/amp

CelticRambler

ek motor wrote: »

Thats debateable , SARS-CoV-1 certainly 'made the news' at the time. Also , there were only 8,000 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-1 and 2,500 of MERS, currently there are over 3 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 with almost every country in the world affected. The idea that it will simply 'fade away' is not credible.

Well, let's see how often it makes the news this time next year ...

Lux23

There is no cure for the common cold, so I suspect that could be the case with this thing.

ek motor

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, let's see how often it makes the news this time next year ...

I admire your optimism !

Xertz

Lux23 wrote: »

There is no cure for the common cold, so I suspect that could be the case with this thing.

For a start the 'Common Cold' is a collection of about 200 viruses that all cause more or less the same set of symptoms and they're mostly rhinoviruses.

Secondly, it's is a minor annoyance and doesn't tend to hospitalise or kill people. So there's been relatively little effort put into finding a vaccine for any of the viruses that cause it or antiviral treatments for treating it.

COVID-19 in contrast is caused by one, very specific virus. While it may be prone to change, the main thing with a vaccine is that the protein coat doesn't change that much, i.e. so your immune system can identify it. That seems to be stable enough on this virus, despite it being an RNA virus.

I'd still be fairly optimistic that a vaccine is possible and there are currently 100 different vaccines in development.
Everyone who can research this is researching it, so a break through may come quicker than with anything else.

HIV never got the level of interest either due to it being 'something someone else gets' and also the heavy stigmatisation of it that went around because it was associated with sex and particularly gay sex in the early days, and people got into moral nonsense instead of investing in solving it. So, the research on that was far slower than it will be with this.

With SARS-CoV-2 /COVID-19, they're literally throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to find solutions.

It's not going to be ready very quickly though. If a breakthrough happens, it will be a year or more away before you'd be ready to actually consider using it, and that would be using very accelerated approval.

Hmmzis

CelticRambler wrote: »

The flu vaccine doesn't kill you by triggering your immune system into a "cytokine storm".

Yet Influenza can and is inducing it as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4711683/

The onus is on the vaccine makers to prevent that form happening.

It won't. Once it's relatively easy to stop people from dying (through conventional medicine), there won't be any greater justification for a lockdown than there was last year.

That also depends largely on any other complications people can get from the Covid-19 disease. Even if you can stop people from dying, given how fast it spreads and the time it takes to train up respiratory system doctors, I still see a large appetite for getting a vaccine developed.
Personally, I wouldn't like the prospects of getting hospitalised by this thing every year or so. Even if the vaccine has a 1:55000 chance of giving me narcolepsy, I'd still go for it, if it keeps me out of hospital.

If what you're saying is correct about the immunity part of SARS-cov-2 then it will be prevalent in the world for very long time as we simply can't snuff it out anymore by conventional means. Having something that damages peoples lungs, kidneys and hearts, and creates massive costs to the healthcare system, will be a big enough motivator to find a vaccine, maybe not this year or next, but people will keep trying and there will be money for it. Otherwise we'd never bothered with a flu vaccine either and that pathogen can't hold a candle to SARS-cov-2.

CelticRambler

Hmmzis wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't like the prospects of getting hospitalised by this thing every year or so. Even if the vaccine has a 1:55000 chance of giving me narcolepsy, I'd still go for it, if it keeps me out of hospital.

It's highly likely (based on early observations [not proper research]) that there's a genetic reason for who gets the severe form and who doesn't. If you've got not-at-risk genes, then you'll have a 100% chance of staying out of hospital without a vaccine, or a 1:55000 chance of ending up in hospital after having had the vaccine. Under those circumstances, it's not a rational choice to recommend (or have) a vaccine.

Hmmzis wrote: »

Even if you can stop people from dying, given how fast it spreads and the time it takes to train up respiratory system doctors, I still see a large appetite for getting a vaccine developed.

A vaccine will take somewhere between 18 months and twenty years; a "respiratory system doctor" can be trained in a week, starting with a "normal" doctor. Last year, in three days I trained a team of 10 "civilians" to handle a severe respiratory epidemic. It's not rocket science ... just basic medicine, nursing and team-work.

Xertz

Of course there’s “a large appetite for getting a vaccine developed”. That’s a given. Every angle that can be thought up is being pursued by everyone who can pursue it.

We have a much better grasp of biotechnology than we would have had even a decade ago, so it’s possible this may actually work rapidly.

In normal circumstances, a vaccine would take around ten years to go into production. In this case, if a few of those 100 or so projects are successful, the approvals will be fast tracked on an almost unprecedented way.

ek motor

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's highly likely (based on early observations [not proper research]) that there's a genetic reason for who gets the severe form and who doesn't. If you've got not-at-risk genes, then you'll have a 100% chance of staying out of hospital without a vaccine, or a 1:55000 chance of ending up in hospital after having had the vaccine. Under those circumstances, it's not a rational choice to recommend (or have) a vaccine.



A vaccine will take somewhere between 18 months and twenty years; a "respiratory system doctor" can be trained in a week, starting with a "normal" doctor. Last year, in three days I trained a team of 10 "civilians" to handle a severe respiratory epidemic. It's not rocket science ... just basic medicine, nursing and team-work.

How do you identify people with at-risk genes ?

CelticRambler

ek motor wrote: »

How do you identify people with at-risk genes ?

Exactly! At the moment, you do it by waiting ten days after they first show symptoms. If they don't get better, they get much worse. The best value-for-money research would be to find out why that happens, and to whom. That would (will) allow early preventative treatments to be given at the first signs of a suspicious respiratory illness, or if a susceptible person is travelling to an area where the disease is poorly managed/currently active.

Antigen tests and antibody tests do not give that information, so they have no place in an established and ongoing epi/pandemic. There's a genetic test available for dogs that identifies a gene that makes some individuals susceptible to toxicity from common anti-parasite treatments; that's the kind of test we need.

[side note: in Mulhouse, my "local" area, i.e. where I work, not where I live, they're not testing suspect patients as much with "tests" now, because it's quicker and easier and more accurate to shove them in a scanner and see if they've got the characteristic "ground glass" lesions, then treat accordingly]

CelticRambler

Xertz wrote: »

In normal circumstances, a vaccine would take around ten years to go into production. In this case, if a few of those 100 or so projects are successful, the approvals will be fast tracked on an almost unprecedented way.

You can't fast-track biology. Thinking that our 21st-Century, high-tech, globally-connected lifestyle separates us from nature is what's got us into this situation. "Unprecedented approvals" is a recipe for trouble.

Hmmzis

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's highly likely (based on early observations [not proper research]) that there's a genetic reason for who gets the severe form and who doesn't. If you've got not-at-risk genes, then you'll have a 100% chance of staying out of hospital without a vaccine, or a 1:55000 chance of ending up in hospital after having had the vaccine. Under those circumstances, it's not a rational choice to recommend (or have) a vaccine.

If that indeed turns out to be the case, then of course I'll first be looking to get that genetic test done. Only after that I'll be deciding if a vaccine is needed for me. On the other hand, if it's just "Russian Roulette", then I'd rather take my chances with a risky vaccine than with SARS-cov-2.

A vaccine will take somewhere between 18 months and twenty years; a "respiratory system doctor" can be trained in a week, starting with a "normal" doctor. Last year, in three days I trained a team of 10 "civilians" to handle a severe respiratory epidemic. It's not rocket science ... just basic medicine, nursing and team-work.

Thanks for that info, wasn't aware it's that simple. From reading about the ICU machinery and what it does and how they get operated I got the impression one needs to be quite a well trained doctor to not do more harm than good.

Btw. you mentioned a treatment that's supposed to be great help being in peer review. Would you be able to share a link to the pre-print version, if one is available? I'd love to have a read.

ek motor

Hmmzis wrote: »

If that indeed turns out to be the case, then of course I'll first be looking to get that genetic test done. Only after that I'll be deciding if a vaccine is needed for me. On the other hand, if it's just "Russian Roulette", then I'd rather take my chances with a risky vaccine than with SARS-cov-2.



Thanks for that info, wasn't aware it's that simple. From reading about the ICU machinery and what it does and how they get operated I got the impression one needs to be quite a well trained doctor to not do more harm than good.

Btw. you mentioned a treatment that's supposed to be great help being in peer review. Would you be able to share a link to the pre-print version, if one is available? I'd love to have a read.

I'll second this, would like to have a read if theres a link ?

CelticRambler

Hmmzis wrote: »

Thanks for that info, wasn't aware it's that simple. From reading about the ICU machinery and what it does and how they get operated I got the impression one needs to be quite a well trained doctor to not do more harm than good.

Well, no, it is and isn't that simple. You only really need one "well-trained doctor" to manage several cases (dozens, or several dozens); after that, it's all about the nursing staff and other "technicians" of various kinds, and the supervising doctor trusting them to do their jobs. London's "Nightingale" field-hospital failed to live up to its promise because it didn't have enough nurses, while all the innovation that's defused the ventilator crisis has come from non-medical people.

This is where having the right science - and scientists - behind and government-directed "science led" strategy is critical. If you've got too many theoretical academics involved, they don't know (or have forgotten) how innovative frontline staff can be, especially when they're allowed call in talent that has no obvious place in a hospital setting. Now that the pandemic has crested, these folk have more time and mental space to come up with good ideas using existing medicines, equipment and techniques. We'll see a whole panoply of protocols published over the next few months by people working outside the influence of Big Pharma and government-funded projects.

Hmmzis wrote: »

Btw. you mentioned a treatment that's supposed to be great help being in peer review. Would you be able to share a link to the pre-print version, if one is available? I'd love to have a read.

There's none yet available; will try to provide a link to it if/as soon as one is.

Hmmzis

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

Good thing that one got knocked on its head.

4068ac1elhodqr

Researchers found that areas with high levels of selenium were more likely to recover from the virus.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/uos-lib042920.php
...a medical statistician at the University of Surrey, said; "There is a significant link between selenium status and COVID-19 cure rate, however it is important not to overstate this finding; we have not been able to work with individual level data and have not been able to take account of other possible factors such as age and underlying disease."

Can't beat an aul cup of Selenium (and maybe also liquorice) tea.

CelticRambler

Hmmzis wrote: »

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

Good thing that one got knocked on its head.

Well ... yes ... but they've now acknowledged that their test is "so sensitive" that it is inherently biased to give false positives to anyone who may have been visited by a coronavirus in the past.

So the problematic testing dilemma resurfaces: if you test people, how do you interpret the results - are the "positives" really positive, are they asymptomatic carriers/excreters, are they post-symptomatic carriers/excreters, are they pre-symptomatic carriers/excreters ... or are they people who just happen to have bits of SARS-CoV-2 in their bloodstream from enteric contamination [hypothetical, not proven]? And how do you decide to allocate what resources to each of these people?

CelticRambler

Averie Drab Terrier wrote: »

Researchers found that areas with high levels of selenium were more likely to recover from the virus.

<snip>

Can't beat an aul cup of Selenium (and maybe also liquorice) tea.

Next thing you know, people'll be stealing salt-licks from the green fields of Erin and selling them on the Dark Web! :pac:

Gotta wonder, though, how a team of statisticians working in Surrey can draw reliable conclusions about disease outcomes in different Chinese provinces using data provided by a Chinese tech company.

Then again, Dr. Fauci is boosting the share price of the American company Gilead with a statement about rather vague "positive results" about the use of Remdesivir while the ink is still wet on a Chinese study published in the Lancet indicating that it is no better than a placebo ...

4068ac1elhodqr

CelticRambler wrote: »

Then again, Dr. Fauci is boosting the share price of the American company Gilead with a statement about rather vague "positive results" about the use of Remdesivir while the ink is still wet on a Chinese study published in the Lancet indicating that it is no better than a placebo ...

Good point, there are lots of people of influence sitting on the boards of industry related companies/organisations, with avenues for proit and policy influence.

One bonus with more natural things such as selenium or other vitamins and minerals is that they're cheap, clean, plentyful and difficult to patent into an expensive FMCG on-shelf box.

Gynoid

Averie Drab Terrier wrote: »

Researchers found that areas with high levels of selenium were more likely to recover from the virus.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/uos-lib042920.php
...a medical statistician at the University of Surrey, said; "There is a significant link between selenium status and COVID-19 cure rate, however it is important not to overstate this finding; we have not been able to work with individual level data and have not been able to take account of other possible factors such as age and underlying disease."

Can't beat an aul cup of Selenium (and maybe also liquorice) tea.

Funny enough right back at the beginning I heard selenium was a help to counter Covid. You only need 1 brazil nut per day for enough selenium. Too much is bad so no horsing in the brazil nuts. Just the one a day.

Spanish Eyes

This is all speculation and willy waving.

But I suppose it passes the time for some of you.

We will be informed when and if a vaccine works and when it will become available, and when and if a decent treatment emerges. From peer reviewed trials and results, and from the experts in their fields, and all that.

The common cold rarely kills anyone, that corona virus is nothing to worry about really in the big scheme of things compared to this animal.

CelticRambler

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We will be informed when and if a vaccine works and when it will become available, and when and if a decent treatment emerges.

That's how it should be. Unfortunately, we've seen a parade of politicians and their hand-picked scientific (-ish) advisors jumping the gun on everything from tests to treatments in a supposed attempt to "reassure the public" that they're winning a self-declared war on something that doesn't care for their electioneering hyperbole.

But speculation and willy-waving has been part and parcel of the scientific process since Homo first realised he was sapiens. That's how, in part, you're able to project your thoughts into cyberspace from the comfort of your own sofa. :P

Spanish Eyes

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's how it should be. Unfortunately, we've seen a parade of politicians and their hand-picked scientific (-ish) advisors jumping the gun on everything from tests to treatments in a supposed attempt to "reassure the public" that they're winning a self-declared war on something that doesn't care for their electioneering hyperbole.

But speculation and willy-waving has been part and parcel of the scientific process since Homo first realised he was sapiens. That's how, in part, you're able to project your thoughts into cyberspace from the comfort of your own sofa. :P

Sure what else can we do except have an oul rant now and then on the sofa. :P

Gynoid

What if you don't have a willy to wave? Do you have to wave the closest willy to you?

LuckyLloyd

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0429/1135682-coronavirus-remdesivir/

Not a cure, and probably nothing that is going to change the landscape significantly, but a standard treatment that improves outcomes may soon be available.

yosemitesam1

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The common cold rarely kills anyone, that corona virus is nothing to worry about really in the big scheme of things compared to this animal.

Endemic coronavirus strains are well capable of killing old and vulnerable people, rhinovirus also

Hmmzis

CelticRambler wrote: »

...


There's none yet available; will try to provide a link to it if/as soon as one is.

Since it's a French study and you mentioned you're in the field in France. Is this the one you were talking about?

https://www.aphp.fr/contenu/tocilizumab-improves-significantly-clinical-outcomes-patients-moderate-or-severe-covid-19

Or is there a different one coming from you? Wold be even better, the more options of improved care we have the better.