Covid-19 Politics

I figured since many of us are still living in places where there are Covid-19 outbreaks and it's likely to be a major public health problem and political issue for months to come we might as well have a politics version of the thread.

You can talk about your country's response to covid-19, another country's, or any interesting developments on the scientific front. Or leave it open and talk about whatever you want to with respect to the virus.

Here's an interesting article on animal data for two vaccine candidates: Sinovac and Oxford. My understanding is that the animal testing is really intended to look for safety problems such as antibody dependent enhancement, but you can also get some sense of efficacy in the animal model as well.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipelin...avirus-vaccine

Just read this today: https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/modern...vaccine-trial/
This was also mentioned in the comments section of your article above Bronc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Just read this today: https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/modern...vaccine-trial/
This was also mentioned in the comments section of your article above Bronc.

---

Thanks Fred. I hadn't read about that specific study but only knew that Moderna's vaccine is considered one of the most promising candidates. Oxford University had one of the most aggressive timelines in terms of getting through trials. I've read from a few scientists that Oxford's trials are not discouraging in the broader sense, though it makes it unlikely it will be the best candidate or that it will provide sterilizing immunity. But if I could take a vaccine right now that would make a Covid-19 infection basically like the common cold because it would only cause an upper respiratory tract infection I'd be okay with that. The thing is though that its sample size was small and the low antibody titers means it might not provide durable protection either.

From what I've read there will likely be a successful vaccine candidate for Covid-19, but the timeline for it will be a contested issue. The distribution of an unsafe vaccine would be an absolute disaster in so many ways.

Donald Trump just said that he is taking Hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug that has failed to separate itself from placebo in randomized trials and which has a non-trivial side effect profile. So in addition to his other "qualities" the guy is batshit insane. He's taking it as a prophylactic even though there's no evidence supporting it for that purpose and very low quality evidence in the case of disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Donald Trump just said that he is taking Hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug that has failed to separate itself from placebo in randomized trials and which has a non-trivial side effect profile. So in addition to his other "qualities" the guy is batshit insane. He's taking it as a prophylactic even though there's no evidence supporting it for that purpose and very low quality evidence in the case of disease.

---

Not surprised at all that the Clueless Buffoon Donald Trump said that he's the anti-malaria drug Hydroxychloroquine,even though the drug has dangerous side effects and has no evidence supporting it's purpose in the case of CO-VID 19. and this latest example continues to show that he doesn't believe in science or facts, and continues to downplay the global pandemic,and is just another distraction from the Trump Administration in their mishandling of the pandemic. and completely agree that he is batshit insane.

Hospitals in NYC have been prescribing Plaquenil for patients with Covid-19, but I’m unsure if they still are or if the patients had to be of a certain age. My Dad’s in his eighties with COPD, emphysema, high blood pressure and Diabetes. He’s also had at least one stroke in his lifetime. I had to send him to the hospital in February because a combination of him having Flu, a cold, or Pneumonia and not having taken his medication for a while (I found out later on). He was rehabbing at a nursing facility, on oxygen when in mid April he was sent to a hospital again because his level wouldn’t rise enough. They suspected he had Covid, put him on the plaquenil and after about two days he went back to the nursing home. The nursing home tested him again and he was definitely positive. He tested negative twice after two weeks and was moved to a Covid free floor. He never lost consciousness or felt in dire straits.
There are a lot of mysteries to this virus and, even still, whether or not Planequil does ANYTHING, .....but...?

Questions will remain - Did he have Covid 19 when he originally went in ? The time span makes it Very unlikely though he did have almost every symptom including blood clots (unfortunately, in his condition, he’d probably have all those symptoms anyway with just a powerful cold). He strongly fits the profile of eventually needing a ventilator and/or dying. Yet none of that ever came close to happening. Did the early Plaquenil help? Is he immortal. So many questions.

I hate posting anecdotal stuff like this, because every time I disagree with an anti-vaxxer on any social media, there’s always someone that has to write - I’m positive my child has autism because of a vaccination he/she received...as if that’s evidence of anything. It isn’t. Neither is what I posted...I know that.

P.S. I know I’ve become a cranky old fuck, because when the people on my block bang their pots and pans (everyday at 7PM) for healthcare workers, it annoys the living shit out of me.
I think a solid week of that is probably enough. I’m sure some of them are trying to watch TV also...lol.

I think my view of unproven drugs is open-minded. If there's no available treatment, I would want to take something that might work instead of nothing, as long as the side effect profile is reasonable. I've taken medicines that have long qt syndrome as a potential side effect and present a low risk of a fatal arrythmia. Of course, there have now been several randomized controlled trials and it seems unlikely hydroxychloroquine works for Covid-19. If it works, which again is unlikely, what would be the mechanism of action? Is it acting to prevent cytokine storm? If it has anti-viral effects, why?

If I got sick with Covid-19 a month or more ago, I might prefer to take Hydroxychloroquine to nothing. At this point, I'd prefer nothing and at the hospital hope I got convalescent plasma and if not, then Remdesivir, whose effectiveness is probably not great.

On the other hand, Trump is taking this prophylactically if he's telling the truth. He's in his seventies, is obese, and is taking a drug that probably doesn't treat the disease and almost certainly doesn't prevent it. And he's taking hydroxy every day for an undefined period of time.... hoping it will keep the virus from infecting him. Seems way out there to me.

BTW, I'm really glad your father is doing well. If I were in your shoes I think I might suspect the Hydroxychloroquine works too. But consider, although 18% of people in their 80s (I know the pre-existing condition worsen those odds) die from Covid, that's still 82% who don't. I've had bad pneumonia and whenever it turns for the better it always seems like a miracle. The other thing is that I read a recent article that said sometimes the course of a viral disease is impacted by the amount of virus one is initially infected with. There have been people in their 90s with emphysema who have had very mild illness.

But I understand you feeling that it may have played a role in his recovery. BTW, I am on the board of a non-profit and they are holding Covid porch parties and I haven't done one of them...so I hear you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

It isn’t. Neither is what I posted...I know that.

---

I appreciate that you have both a strong feeling and also insight that it's anecdotal rather than proof. Assuming a drug works may be post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where you assume the fact that someone got better after they took a drug means the drug caused the improvement. There's another saying people might invoke, which is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's why I might take an unproven treatment over nothing but I think we're getting some affirmative evidence Hydroxy doesn't work.

My current interest in this acts at the political level. Tony Blair on the BBC-2 Newsnight programme on Monday night argued correctly that a Pandemic required -and still requires- the one thing it has not created: global co-operation with some form of global leadership -because we are all affected by this, and will be for some to come owing to its economic and particularly its trading implications.

The history of public health at the international level may be mixed, but on more occasions than not States and Empires found a way to co-operate and have been doing so since the mid-19th century at an organized level. Paul Weindling produced some reseearch on this and also published a book, International Heath Organizations and Movements, 1919-1939 (Cambridge, 1995).

Although much has been made of the failure of the US President to lead his own country, let alone the world, he is in good- or bad- company. Boris Johnson may have been in the unique position of being unable to lead anything owing to his own absence in hospital with the disease, but the EU has shown itself incapable of unifying policies, member states going their own way much to the delight of the Leave faction in the UK, while there have been some unfortunate spats over PPE being shared.

At the Global Level, the WHO would be the most obvious co-ordinator of a unified response, but the USA's dismal attitude (in spite of the role America medics and scientists play in the field), the suspicion China has not told the whole of the truth, and the lack of leadership skills on the part of Tedros Ghebreyesus have all conspired to prevent us all 'coming together' to achieve something that in reality medicine and science can achieve, because we have the money, the intellect and the will to prevent Covid 19 remaining in society as a killer, rather than just an annoying illness. That there is no unified campaign to find a vaccine, and the implication I have read somewhere that whoever 'gets there first' won't share it, does not sound good to me.

That may all sound like I am disappointed a universal love-in has not happened, yet here we are, and what do we have to lose by pooling our resources, as the late Roy Porter might have put it, 'for the benefit of mankind'?

Too many countries are being run by selfish, greedy stupid poliicians who wanted to save money rather than spend it on an hypothesis, and have now found themselves having to spend 20 times the amount on reality.