The first is cells emit a signal to other cells that it's infected, which causes the cell receiving the signal to shutdown replication facilities.
The second message sends out a call for the cops.
Covd2 stops the first signal but allows the second.
Suppressing the first signal means it can replicate faster because the cells in the area didn't stop their replication facilities.
Allowing the second means you get tons of cops showing up because every cell is now calling the hotline. So many cops in one area causes problems of its own.
The cops can't kill them fast enough because the cells aren't slowing down replication. So you get tons of virus cells and tons of host immune cells, and not enough organ cells doing whatever they do.
Anyway they're saying possibly manually taking replication inhibitors would substitute for cells 1st message not working, and allow the runaway infection to be killed by the cops.
There are issues with just blindly taking drugs for this. So they'd have to find out when its appropriate.
"The ability of chemotherapy to kill cancer cells depends on its ability to halt cell division. Usually, cancer drugs work by damaging the RNA or DNA that tells the cell how to copy itself in division. If the cancer cells are unable to divide, they die."
So wouldn't a low dose chemotherapy work on this drug?
The article also says this suppression is "stronger than the original SARS virus or influenza viruses".
The article touches on how this might connect with the severity of the disease. But I'm curious if it could also have something to do with how easy it is to transmit. If your lungs contain many times more viruses (than they'd have with most other diseases), then perhaps when you cough, many times more viruses float out into the air.
With COVID updates like this come every week; in the 1990s with HIV it was more like every few months there was some new report/observation. But those- like these were framed with the similar- holy shit, this virus does stuff we have never seen before.
I would caution to not infer that anything like a viable solution at scale on either the preventative side or the treatment side is anywhere near deployment.
In practice, this does not always translate to effective treatments in actual people. Further, this type of treatment is known to have risks and side effects, so we will likely not be able to give it to everyone as a preventative measure. Further, it is not clear how early in the disease's progression one would need to take such a drug to get a significant benefit.
No, but it gives doctors another thing to try with the possibility that it might work.
Interferon treatment isn't pleasant, so you won't do it without justification. This gives some justification to actually try it in humans if things are really bad.
Hmmmm, Mr. President? I have this new experimental therapy you might want to try...