Ctrl+F "remdesivir". No results in the article. Epic fail. There's really no cure for the Trump Derangement Syndrome, though.
What are your similarly long-term credentials that give you such definitive knowledge?
(Also, perhaps if you read the article instead of just doing Ctl-F for Remdesivir, you'd have noticed that he said he plans to discuss specific drugs in an upcoming post.)
Being experienced doesn't mean you can't be foolish/dogmatic or simply wrong. And it doesn't always take an even more experienced researcher to prove someone wrong.
I wish we would discuss more about the actual issues instead of belittling users' qualifications to speak about them.
m0zg appears to be implying that in the collaboration between Derek Lowe and the professionals he has talked to to write this article, nobody is aware of remdesivir, or, alternatively, that they are aware, that they explicitly chose not to write it / to accord their contribution to the article without requiring that it is mentioned, and that makes them unqualified hacks.
Because if that is not what was implied, I don't get why the words 'epic fail' are used.
And that is an extraordinary claim, at least in the mind of user hprotagonist, given that he is aware of Derek Lowe's expertise levels. Disregarding it without further proof is _NOT_ an appeal to authority.
The point that hprotaganist is making is NOT: "remdesivir is useless; Derek Lowe did not mention it here which is proof enough for me". Their point is simply: "I am not convinced that remdesivir is an obvious answer, because I find it highly implausible that if it is such a slam dunk answer, that Derek Lowe would fail to mention it."
In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; your claim that remdesivir could be a plausible route to a quick fix for the problem and that Derek Lowe isn't aware of this is extraordinary. Your evidence of basically nothing other than the word of random joe hackernews commenter + the word 'remdesivir' (so, I guess, the wikipedia entry which anybody can search the web for armed solely with the word?) isn't sufficient proof for it.
That's all. This is not an appeal to authority fallacy in my book, simply a request that you provide a little more direct indication that remdesivir is likely to be a panacea here, especially if you start insinuating that the article author has 'epic failed' here.
...yeah it is. Remdesivir has improved patient outcomes in the majority of cases it's been used so far - no, it hasn't been subject to comprehensive peer-reviewed study quite yet, but that's an awful reason to ignore our eyes in an emergent situation like this where death may be the alternative, and highly irresponsible for Derek Lowe to ignore. You're appealing to it being proper to ignore because authorities feel they haven't gone through enough red tape yet.
Am I wrong in observing that the public health response to the outbreak seems to be far less oriented towards solving the problem, but rather using psychological tactics to convince people that everything is fine, "the risk is low", and doing nothing is the proper response? (but also you're probably going to get the virus, so prepare for that, but only by washing your hands and certainly not preparing in a way that disrupts globalism)
> What's not happening is the advent of any drug, vaccine, antibody or anything else in time to keep this epidemic from becoming a very big problem. That's because it is already a very big problem
We don't need a treatment in a few months, or even a few weeks. We need a treatment _now_, and we don't have one. Even if remdesivir works, and we can show that _now_, we need to ramp up production and distribution.
Also, it seems like it could be covered in tomorrow's/Friday's post:
> either tomorrow or Friday I hope to do a post on all the things that are going on in the biopharma industry for a possible coronavirus treatment [... ] as anyone who knows anything about drug or vaccine or antibody development knows, we are many months away from the quickest possible proven intervention (more on this in the promised post)
At best, antivirals will keep some of the worst infected patients from dying. The real problem is that there's no vaccine, and not likely to be one for a year or more. That's both because they take time to produce and because this particular type of virus is "good" at making the human immune system "forget" it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-pres...
>THE PRESIDENT: ... You take a solid flu vaccine — you don’t think that would have an impact or much of an impact on corona?
>DR. SCHLEIFER: No.
>DR. FAUCI: Probably not.
>THE PRESIDENT: Probably not. That’s separate.
“And how long would that take?” Trump asked. The CEO said it would take months and then head into phase three. “All right. So you’re talking within a year.”
“A year to a year and a half,” Fauci again clarified.
“Well, but, Lenny is talking about two months, right?” Trump said, incorrectly referring to Schleifer’s August estimate.
“A little — a little longer,” Schleifer again clarified. “A little longer.”
“A couple of months, right?” Trump pressed. “I mean, I like the sound of a couple of months better, I must be honest with you.”
...
Soon, Trump returned to his preferred months-long timetable. Asked by a reporter whether he’s comfortable with this taking longer than that, Trump again sounded as though he hadn’t heard everything the CEOs and experts had just told him.
“I don’t think they know what the time will be,” Trump said. “I’ve heard very quick numbers — a matter of months — and I’ve heard pretty much a year would be an outside number.”
Heck, if I had the money I would do it, just for fun (and to make the world a better place, of course). I mean, these people are not stubborn or dumb or shy. I guess they are just intimidated by this guy who can basically ruin their professional careers and thus their financial existence with a snap of his fingers - and who wouldn't hesitate to do so, if his feeble ego craves for it. That must be why we get "A little - a little longer" instead of "Nobody said anything about 'two', you just made that up! The only number that fell was 'one', and it was suffixed by 'year'. Let me repeat that for you: one year! Oh, and I must be honest with you: nobody cares about what you'd like to hear."