Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> If this study was only conducted on patients who were already hospitalized I don't think it is a cohort that represents Remdesivir's intended users.

That's the scope of the authorized investigatory use in the US, so unless you think the Trump Administration is simultaneously promoting and sabotaging it, I think it's the intended target:

“VEKLURY® (remdesivir) is authorized for use under an EUA only for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients hospitalized with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and for whom use of an intravenous (IV) agent is clinically appropriate. VEKLURY must be administered via IV infusion.”

https://www.remdesivir.com/us/?gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclid=CjwKCAjwi...

View on HN

Define 'hospitalized'. I think two realities are being discussed under the same term.

The way I see it, hospitalized can mean: I have great insurance and I went into the hospital for treatment because I felt some symptoms. I was feeling 80% well when I went in, I was only there because the doctors wanted to be thorough and check my vitals overnight.

It can also mean: I don't have insurance and I waited until I was half past dead to go to the hospital because I have bad/no insurance. By the time I got to the hospital I couldn't even breath. I went straight to the ICU.

Both are 'hospitalized'. But I don't think the two examples represent the same reality. I'd imagine Remdesivir working very well on the first and not very well on the second due to viral load concerns mentioned in other parts of the commentary to this article.

I don't have a lot of experience with hospitals, but what I do have (via relative with life-threatening heart issues, including most recently a pacemaker) says that "I was feeling 80% well when I went in, I was only there because the doctors wanted to be thorough and check my vitals overnight" isn't normal. It seemed more like "hmm, you're not dying, go home" was the general rule. And not unreasonable, either; unless you need to be in a hospital, you probably shouldn't be. Never felt like we were getting pushed out, but they definitely encouraged us to go home. Excellent insurance, so that wasn't the issue, and there were several multi-day stays, including post-surgery. Pre-covid (but within the last three years), so space wasn't an issue either. [And the person's doing great now. +1 modern medicine.]

Yes. If you don’t absolutely need to be in a hospital, you don’t want to be there. People pick up all sorts of unfortunate infections in hospitals.

That may just mean that since it's given through IV, you need to be in a hospital to get it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com