Coronovirus IV

[Ingomike]

Please quote a legitimate source for claims that Remdesivir is "expensive". I do not condone maligning safe, effective medical treatments regardless of which side of the political aisle benefits.

It costs more than I can afford so it has to be expensive... LOL

I think he is implying that it is under patent so potential profit is there for the future, but certainly not stated that way...

 

[chipbennett]

It costs more than I can afford so it has to be expensive... LOL

I think he is implying that it is under patent so potential profit is there for the future, but certainly not stated that way...

It currently doesn't cost anything.

 

[foszoe]

I must be on ignore. Remdesivir doses are being donated until the pandemic is no longer a pandemic pretty much. About the 5th time this has been posted. Sheeple will be sheeple!

 

[JettaKnight]

Well sure, I get that.

...but the conclusions

The Birth of the Living Virus Lie

WTF did I click on... there's not enough purple or html flash for it to be KJV only...

 

[Ingomike]

Apparently WHO, who I have often been critical of for their China connections, doesn't buy into the American subservience trend of trying to force masks on the sheeple*.

• If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
• Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
• Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
• If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

• Before putting on a mask, clean hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
• Cover mouth and nose with mask and make sure there are no gaps between your face and the mask.
• Avoid touching the mask while using it; if you do, clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
• Replace the mask with a new one as soon as it is damp and do not re-use single-use masks.
• To remove the mask: remove it from behind (do not touch the front of mask); discard immediately in a closed bin; clean hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.

That is just about a 180 degrees from what the US media are promoting. And the advice passes the common sense test. I guarantee that no one outside of a medical setting is doing it properly and homemade masks are downright impossible to do safely.


https://www.who.int/emergencies/dis...9/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

 

[chipbennett]

Apparently WHO, who I have often been critical of for their China connections, doesn't buy into the American subservience trend of trying to force masks on the sheeple*.

That is just about a 180 degrees from what the US media are promoting. And the advice passes the common sense test. I guarantee that no one outside of a medical setting is doing it properly and homemade masks are downright impossible to do safely.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/dis...9/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

If I had time to dig into it, I would be looking into research regarding the viral load of the exhalation of an asymptomatic person vs the viral load of the exhalation of a symptomatic person. I suspect that the latter is considerably more than the former, because it is the symptoms themselves - such as coughing/sneezing in particular, but possibly others such as fever - that increase the viral load of one's exhalation.

In other words: I suspect that an asymptomatic person wearing or not wearing a mask very well may make next to no difference in contribution to ambient viral load, because the asymptomatic person is not appreciably contributing to ambient viral load through exhalation to begin with.

If that's true, then the mask-wearing by asymptomatic persons truly is nothing more than virtue signaling.

 

[nonobaddog]

It currently doesn't cost anything.

I don't think Gilead has released their pricing plans yet. They did say they would donate their existing supply which in reality isn't all that much - enough for 140K people or about 0.0018% of world the population. After that they could charge whatever they want. They did apply for and register this drug as a treatment for a rare disease on March 23. That is not a good sign for pricing. A disease in the middle of a pandemic is hardly a rare disease so that sends a bad message about their intent. It sent such a bad message that they rescinded that status on March 25.

 

[JettaKnight]

If I had time to dig into it, I would be looking into research regarding the viral load of the exhalation of an asymptomatic person vs the viral load of the exhalation of a symptomatic person. I suspect that the latter is considerably more than the former, because it is the symptoms themselves - such as coughing/sneezing in particular, but possibly others such as fever - that increase the viral load of one's exhalation.

In other words: I suspect that an asymptomatic person wearing or not wearing a mask very well may make next to no difference in contribution to ambient viral load, because the asymptomatic person is not appreciably contributing to ambient viral load through exhalation to begin with.

If that's true, then the mask-wearing by asymptomatic persons truly is nothing more than virtue signaling.

Now that's an interesting theory.



Of course, if you honestly believe you're doing the right thing, and think you're making a difference yourself, is that virtue signalling?

 

[nonobaddog]

If I had time to dig into it, I would be looking into research regarding the viral load of the exhalation of an asymptomatic person vs the viral load of the exhalation of a symptomatic person. I suspect that the latter is considerably more than the former, because it is the symptoms themselves - such as coughing/sneezing in particular, but possibly others such as fever - that increase the viral load of one's exhalation.

In other words: I suspect that an asymptomatic person wearing or not wearing a mask very well may make next to no difference in contribution to ambient viral load, because the asymptomatic person is not appreciably contributing to ambient viral load through exhalation to begin with.

If that's true, then the mask-wearing by asymptomatic persons truly is nothing more than virtue signaling.

Are you disputing the claims that an asymptomatic person can spread the disease? That has been generally accepted as true all along.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't think Gilead has released their pricing plans yet. They did say they would donate their existing supply which in reality isn't all that much - enough for 140K people or about 0.0018% of world the population. After that they could charge whatever they want. They did apply for and register this drug as a treatment for a rare disease on March 23. That is not a good sign for pricing. A disease in the middle of a pandemic is hardly a rare disease so that sends a bad message about their intent. It sent such a bad message that they rescinded that status on March 25.

Gilead has made announcements with respect to more than just their currently supply, IIRC.

And even if not, again, I'm under NDA and so can't get into specifics, but I will tell you that you are wrong with respect to Gilead's intent for their intended supply for Remdesivir manufactured in 2020 overall.

 

[chipbennett]

Are you disputing the claims that an asymptomatic person can spread the disease? That has been generally accepted as true all along.

I didn't say that, at all. I said that I suspect that the contributed ambient viral load from exhalation of an asymptomatic carrier is likely minimal.

There are some studies that appear to support that suspicion.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32405162/

Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/coronavi... may occur and,than individuals with symptoms

Based on the evidence from China, asymptomatic transmission may occur and has contributed to a limited amount of transmission of COVID-19 infections. People can shed the virus before they have symptoms, but this is generally less than individuals with symptoms. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “the potential for pre-symptomatic transmission underscores the importance of social distancing, including the avoidance of congregate settings, to reduce COVID-19 spread.”

Coughing is believed to be a significant cause of spread/transmission of influenza:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103560

Coughing plays an important role in the rapid spread of influenza infections among humans. Influenza virus-borne bio-particles are discharged from an infected person through coughing and transmitted to uninfected person(s). However, whether influenza virus particles are directly transmitted to the target host as large droplets or through inhalation by the host as small airborne particles remains controversial.

(Unfortunately, given the purpose of the study, there is no comparison of normal respiration vs coughing; only coughing between infected and uninfected persons. Regardless, it is the act of coughing that is assumed to be the means of transmission.)

 

[Ingomike]

If I had time to dig into it, I would be looking into research regarding the viral load of the exhalation of an asymptomatic person vs the viral load of the exhalation of a symptomatic person. I suspect that the latter is considerably more than the former, because it is the symptoms themselves - such as coughing/sneezing in particular, but possibly others such as fever - that increase the viral load of one's exhalation.

In other words: I suspect that an asymptomatic person wearing or not wearing a mask very well may make next to no difference in contribution to ambient viral load, because the asymptomatic person is not appreciably contributing to ambient viral load through exhalation to begin with.

If that's true, then the mask-wearing by asymptomatic persons truly is nothing more than virtue signaling.

Are you disputing the claims that an asymptomatic person can spread the disease? That has been generally accepted as true all along.

Not at all. He is saying when this is studied further they likely will find out that the amount of virus put into the air by an asymptotic carrier is far less than a symptomatic carrier, which makes sense to this farm boy.

I have often pondered if those with even a simple cold were unknowingly spreading it before they got to the point of coughing, sneezing and snotting all over the place, but that they were not spreading at near the rate of when they were coughing, sneezing, and snotting...

 

[chipbennett]

Now that's an interesting theory.

Of course, if you honestly believe you're doing the right thing, and think you're making a difference yourself, is that virtue signalling?

No, not really. It is when the intent of your actions goes from merely doing what you think is right to making a "statement" or attempting to influence the actions or beliefs of others that you move into the realm of virtue signaling.

"If I don't post a picture of me doing it on social media to show everyone how educated/compassionate/woke I am, did I even really do it at all?"

 

[nonobaddog]

If I had time to dig into it, I would be looking into research regarding the viral load of the exhalation of an asymptomatic person vs the viral load of the exhalation of a symptomatic person. I suspect that the latter is considerably more than the former, because it is the symptoms themselves - such as coughing/sneezing in particular, but possibly others such as fever - that increase the viral load of one's exhalation.

In other words: I suspect that an asymptomatic person wearing or not wearing a mask very well may make next to no difference in contribution to ambient viral load, because the asymptomatic person is not appreciably contributing to ambient viral load through exhalation to begin with.

If that's true, then the mask-wearing by asymptomatic persons truly is nothing more than virtue signaling.

OK. I read those statements as meaning the asymptomatic person doesn't need to wear a mask. Since the mask protects other people, when you say they don't need a mask then they must not be a risk to other people.

I'm not sure I buy that just yet. There has been an awful lot of stuff out there saying they could spread the chinese virus which means they are a risk to other people.

 

[Phase2]

Please quote a legitimate source for claims that Remdesivir is "expensive". I do not condone maligning safe, effective medical treatments regardless of which side of the political aisle benefits.

My comment has precisely zero to do with politics, but with effectiveness and cost/benefit. If Remdesivir has shown any benefits in reducing deaths, I would be far less critical. As for costs, Gilead has a history of gouging on drug prices and a historic opportunity awaiting them here.

Fair price for Gilead's COVID-19 med remdesivir? $4,460, cost watchdog says

How much should Gilead Sciences charge for its now-authorized COVID-19 therapy remdesivir? Up to $4,460 per patient, an influential pricing watchdog figures.
...
Even at $1,000 per patient, less than a quarter of ICER's fair price, Gilead could rake in $1 billion in sales this year—at least theoretically. The company’s now bolstering supply with the aim to treat 1 million patients by the end of the year, Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said in a Sunday note.

FYI- ICER (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review) article here.

How much will COVID-19 treatment Remdesivir actually cost?

Gilead does have a history of generating controversy with their drug prices.

In 2015, they were criticized for pricing Sovaldi, a Hepatitis C-fighting drug, at $84,000 per treatment. That broke down to around $1,000 per pill.

 

[chipbennett]

OK. I read those statements as meaning the asymptomatic person doesn't need to wear a mask. Since the mask protects other people, when you say they don't need a mask then they must not be a risk to other people.

I'm not sure I buy that just yet. There has been an awful lot of stuff out there saying they could spread the chinese virus which means they are a risk to other people.

Here's the think, asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and not infected are all three very different things, yet appear identical. Obviously, anyone who is infected poses some degree of risk of transmitting the virus.

The question is: does that risk rise (and does the mitigation provided by mask-wearing commensurately rise) to the level of compelling non-infected people to wear masks?

I think that this question is answered very differently by people who (wrongly) believe that achieving a risk level of zero is possible, much less, desirable. For those who understand that almost no risk can ever be mitigated away completely, and therefore some level of residual risk must be deemed to be acceptable, the decision to wear a mask is more nuanced.

 

[Route 45]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, be this pandemic is pretty much played out for now.

We have switched to riots and BLM for our apocalypse needs.

 

[chipbennett]

My comment has precisely zero to do with politics, but with effectiveness and cost/benefit. If Remdesivir has shown any benefits in reducing deaths, I would be far less critical. As for costs, Gilead has a history of gouging on drug prices and a historic opportunity awaiting them here.

Fair price for Gilead's COVID-19 med remdesivir? $4,460, cost watchdog says


FYI- ICER (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review) article here.

How much will COVID-19 treatment Remdesivir actually cost?

So, in other words: what you have is nothing more than pure speculation? Noted.

Kudos, at least, for not referencing the speculation that Remdesivir (an IV course, not an OSD) would cost "$1,000 per pill".

 

[Phase2]

One of the more bizarre headlines related to the Wuhan coronavirus. Not the Babylon Bee...

Coronavirus: Monkeys 'escape with COVID-19 samples' after attacking lab assistant

Short version- Gangs of macaque monkeys have become emboldened in Delhi India due to the lack of humans around and the reduction in food. Some of the macaques attacked a lab worker and stole several blood samples. "One of the monkeys was later spotted in a tree chewing one of the sample collection kits"

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, be this pandemic is pretty much played out for now.

We have switched to riots and BLM for our apocalypse needs.

Right? Only so many ways you can say, "Masks are good." "Masks are bad."