Jump to content
wild_turkey

COVID-19 medical discussion

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Thanks for the responses. Bama chick had some interesting information in the other thread, too. Seems to me that we should have a federal stockpile. For the supplies that have expiration dates, ship them to needy hospitals or as foreign aid when they need to be replaced.

I am so horrified by this plague. We must be ready for this kind of shit in the future. It seems more important than spending the same sum on a defense item. I'd rather have one less carrier group or squadron of fighters if it meant being able to be up and running fast in the face of a plague.

Hear you loud and clear.  Maddening thing is hundreds of millions of masks could be kept for the cost of just ONE F-35 or B-2/B-21, never mind a carrier group.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question about alcohol consumption nsiap):

will one or two drinks twice a week make an olds (75) much more vulnerable to catching anything? I’m talking about each drink with 2 or 3 ounces of vodka. Myself pre-covid, only drink a couple of margaritas out at happy hour every two weeks, then maybe two stiff Bloody Marys on one Sunday each month. Haven’t had a drop of alcohol in three weeks, but that new bottle of Zing Zang mix and handle of vodka look better every day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Read an odd report today from Bain Consulting (don’t have a copy to share). The report indicated a range of possible future scenarios, and the MOST likely scenario was that the government would deploy a
lightly tested vaccine and/or treatment broadly by May. Pretty shocking if true.

 

18 hours ago, gmr548 said:

I could see that. They're going to be desperate by then. That doesn't mean it'll be effective or without really bad side effects though. Big gamble.

As long as the side effects are minor then I don't have a problem with that.   Our understanding of vaccines is pretty good now, and they are not using live virus, just surface proteins or snippets of viral RNA,  so making a non-fatal vaccine should not be that difficult.  Now whether it works or not is another story, but I know that no vaccine doesn't work.   At least make it available to medical personnel.  They understand the risk/benefits and need it now.  If they wait 18-24 months, the vaccine will be useless.

Edited by Horn Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

As long as the side effects are minor then I don't have a problem with that.   Our understanding of vaccines is pretty good now, and they are not using live virus, just surface proteins or snippets of viral RNA,  so making a non-fatal vaccine should not be that difficult.  Now whether it works or not is another story, but I know that no vaccine doesn't work.   At least make it available to medical personnel.  They understand the risk/benefits and need it now.  If they wait 18-24 months, the vaccine will be useless.

One thing Dr. Fauci spoke about at yesterday's presser is that with this coronavirus, there is concern over a possible observed phenomenon where re-exposure to the bug after you form immunity can result in a fatal immune response when the lungs are involved.  In other words you drown from your own immune response targeting the lungs.  So that is something that is being carefully looked at and understood before rushing out with a vaccine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of the front line docs here getting an early impression on hydroxychloroquine.  Apparently NY has trial(s) in progress.  The ID guys have to have a gut feel by now for whether we are seeing the same signal seen in the french study. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

 

As long as the side effects are minor then I don't have a problem with that.   Our understanding of vaccines is pretty good now, and they are not using live virus, just surface proteins or snippets of viral RNA,  so making a non-fatal vaccine should not be that difficult.  Now whether it works or not is another story, but I know that no vaccine doesn't work.   At least make it available to medical personnel.  They understand the risk/benefits and need it now.  If they wait 18-24 months, the vaccine will be useless.

Just putting myself on the record, again, that a vaccine will be available sooner not later. Like, by fall.

One example of how they'll achieve this was mentioned by Fauci recently. Instead of waiting around to the end of Phase III trials to start producing vaccine, you can produce a billion samples beforehand. Simple, and it does nothing to compromise safety. There are a million tweaks like that one that will get you a vaccine a lot faster than the regular process. You can run phases concurrently, that's another tweak.

Keep in mind, you need an antibody to a surface protein on the virus. It's only a 30k base pair virus, it was sequenced months ago, it's not that hard to figure out how to copy the surface protein and create an immune response. I mean it's not easy but damn we have much better tools than we did even a decade ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

One thing Dr. Fauci spoke about at yesterday's presser is that with this coronavirus, there is concern over a possible observed phenomenon where re-exposure to the bug after you form immunity can result in a fatal immune response when the lungs are involved.  In other words you drown from your own immune response targeting the lungs.  So that is something that is being carefully looked at and understood before rushing out with a vaccine.

asks russian GIF

Do you have a link on that? I tried to google but it looks like Fauci only spoke briefly about vaccines yesterday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Any of the front line docs here getting an early impression on hydroxychloroquine.  Apparently NY has trial(s) in progress.  The ID guys have to have a gut feel by now for whether we are seeing the same signal seen in the french study. 

So far, what I’ve learned second hand is little to no clinical improvement or benefit noted once you’re in an ICU setting on O2/vent and have pneumonia.

Early intervention/prophylaxis is where I’d be focused looking at right now.  But then assuming clear benefit, applying that is dependent on access to mass testing and rapid results turnaround.  Absent that, treatment would be rendered relatively useless due to rapid progression to bilateral pneumonia on average 5 days after symptom onset.  
 

Edited by triplehorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

asks russian GIF

Do you have a link on that? I tried to google but it looks like Fauci only spoke briefly about vaccines yesterday?

I looked for it earlier today and haven’t found it yet.  His podium time yesterday was brief but very information dense.  It’s worth keeping an eye out for it.  Maybe a transcript pops up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I looked for it earlier today and haven’t found it yet.  His podium time yesterday was brief but very information dense.  It’s worth keeping an eye out for it.  Maybe a transcript pops up.

https://www.ideastream.org/prepare-for-outbreak-surge-white-house-coronavirus-briefing-march-26-2020

Fauci starts at about 1:24:45 and speaks for a few minutes. at 1:28, he mentions that there are cases where potential vaccines end up making the disease worse and needing to avoid that being part of the vaccine testing timeline. That's the closest I could find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

https://www.ideastream.org/prepare-for-outbreak-surge-white-house-coronavirus-briefing-march-26-2020

Fauci starts at about 1:24:45 and speaks for a few minutes. at 1:28, he mentions that there are cases where potential vaccines end up making the disease worse and needing to avoid that being part of the vaccine testing timeline. That's the closest I could find.

Thanks.  Fauci speaks to the principle of avoiding “enhancement” of an infection after receiving a vaccine against said infection.  no bueno.

Fauci is a no bullshittin truth teller.  Glad we have him.

Edited by triplehorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, triplehorn said:

 Maybe a transcript pops up.

 

3 hours ago, gmr548 said:

https://www.ideastream.org/prepare-for-outbreak-surge-white-house-coronavirus-briefing-march-26-2020

Fauci starts at about 1:24:45 and speaks for a few minutes. at 1:28, he mentions that there are cases where potential vaccines end up making the disease worse and needing to avoid that being part of the vaccine testing timeline. That's the closest I could find.

Here is a transcript from Dr. Fauci March 26:
 

Spoiler

 

Thank you Mr. Vice President. I'm going to change the topic just a little bit because there was questions that came up and I've been asked about this on a couple of media interactions regarding the interventions that we're talking about. And it's important because it's about something that I said yesterday, about what we would likely see. Whenever you put the clamps down and shut things down, you do it for two reasons: You do it to prevent the further spread -- as we call, mitigation -- but you also do it to buy yourself time to get better prepared for what might be a rebound. It may be a rebound that we get things really under control, and then you pull back, which ultimately we're going to have to do. Everybody in the world is going to have to do that.

You're either going to get a rebound, or it might cycle into the next season. So what are we going to do to prepare ourselves for that? One of the most important things is one that I mentioned several times from this podium, and that is to clarify a bit about the timeline for vaccines and would that have any real impact on what we would call "the rebound" or what we call a "cycling in the season." Certainly, for sure, a vaccine is not going to help us now, next month, the month after. But as I mentioned to you, we went into a phase one trial. And I keep referring to one vaccine; there's more than one. There's a couple of handfuls of vaccines at different stages of development, but they're all following the same course. And the course is: You first go into a phase one trial to see if it's safe and you have very few people, 45 people, within a certain age group -- all healthy, none at really any great risk of getting infected.

And the reason you do that is because you want to make sure that it's safe. Then the next thing you do -- and that takes about three months, easily, maybe more. So that's going to bring us into the beginning or middle of the summer. Then you go to a phase two trial, or what we say "two-three," which means we're going to put a lot of people in there. Now we hope that there aren't a lot of people getting infected, but it is likely there will be somewhere in the world where that's going on. So it's likely that we will get what's called an "efficacy signal," and we will know whether or not it actually works. If, in fact, it does, we hope to rush it to be able to have some impact on recycling in the next season.

And like I said, that could be a year to a year and a half. I'm not changing any of the dates that I mentioned. But one of the things that we are going to do that you need to understand -- that has been a stumbling block for previous development of vaccines -- and that is, even before you know something works, at risk, you have to start producing it. Because once you know it works, you can't say, "Great, it works. Now give me another six months to produce it." So we're working with a variety of companies to take that risk. We didn't take it with Zika. That's why, you know, we have a nice Zika vaccine but we don't have enough to do it because there's no Zika around. Same with SARS. So that's one of the things we're really going to push on is to be able to have it ready, if in fact, it works.

Now, the issue of safety -- something that I want to make sure the American public understand: It's not only safety when you inject somebody and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction, they get a little allergic reaction, they get pain. There's safety associated -- "Does the vaccine make you worse?" And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you're trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection. You can get a good feel for that in animal models. So that's going to be interspersed at the same time that we're testing. We're going to try and make sure we don't have enhancement. So the worst possible thing you do is vaccinate somebody to prevent infection and actually make them worse. Next, and finally, with regard -- I'll get you -- to your question.

Finally, with regard to therapies -- I mean, we keep getting asked about therapies. There's a whole menu of therapies that are going into clinical trial. As I've told you all and I'll repeat it again: The best way to get the best drug as quickly as possible is to do a randomized controlled trial so that you know is it safe and is it effective. If it's not effective, get it off the board and go to the next thing. If it is effective, get it out to the people that need it. So you're going to be hearing, over the next month or more, about different drugs that are going to go into these randomized controlled trials. And I feel confident, knowing about what this virus is and what we can do with it, that we will have some sort of therapy that'll give at least a partial, if not a very good protection in preventing progression of disease. And we'll be back here talking about that a lot, I'm sure. Thank you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fauci speaks to the principle of avoiding “enhancement” of an infection after receiving a vaccine against said infection.


There have apparently been problems with immune enhancement with previous vaccine attempts with other coronaviruses. The vaccine makes the infection worse for people who get it.

So a lot of people keep wanting them to rush out a vaccine even if it’s only 70% effective because a mediocre vaccine beats no vaccine, but the reality is that a bad vaccine has the potential to make the problem worse. We can’t risk injecting most of the country with a vaccine that makes things worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:


So a lot of people keep wanting them to rush out a vaccine even if it’s only 70% effective because a mediocre vaccine beats no vaccine, but the reality is that a bad vaccine has the potential to make the problem worse. We can’t risk injecting most of the country with a vaccine that makes things worse.

 

It's pretty much how every movie about an infected outbreak begins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----> Masks 

I appreciate this expert's demeanor and presentation.  Solid.  It's coming from the national MD spokesperson in SoKo, the country arguably doing the best job top to bottom managing covid.  A lot of it is familiar to most of us by now.

~16min in Masks rationale.  Really the highlight of the interview.

~22 min in: 20% of new infections today in SoKo are being imported via inbound foreign air travel 

~32 min: talks history and future of vaccines, references Dr. Fauci, and talks "repurposing" various drugs to treat Covid.  I'm still waiting to hear someone discuss the potential differences in outcomes between using CHQ/HCHQ for early intervention versus late intervention.  For now the emphasis still appears to be applying them to more advanced complicated cases.  fwiw, I think early app is where it's at.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston Methodist first to try blood transfusion test https://www-houstonchronicle-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/amp/Houston-Methodist-first-in-the-nation-to-try-15164229.php

Quote

Houston Methodist Hospital Saturday night transfused the blood of a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 into a critically ill patient, the first hospital in the nation to try the experimental therapy.

A Houston individual who has been in good health for more than two weeks since being diagnosed donated the blood plasma for what’s known as convalescent serum therapy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...