Hacker News Reader

Comment by orra | Hacker News Reader

I am thinking: if and when this is approved, we have to think about distribution.

This drug is fantastically effective at preventing hospitalisation and death, if administered within three days of symptom onset.

That gives quite a long time! But we still need to make it easy to take. Do pharmacies give it out? ER rooms? We don't want to wait until people are hospitalised; we are trying to avoid that.

So when you test positive, does the government send you out a pill with the "sorry, you have to isolate" SMS?

View on HN

I highly recommend Derek Lowe's post on it for some of the details. It links to the press release which contains this information showing it was very effective still starting at 5 days from symptoms onset:

> Similar reductions in COVID-19-related hospitalization or death were observed in patients treated within five days of symptom onset; 1.0% of patients who received PAXLOVID™ were hospitalized through Day 28 following randomization (6/607 hospitalized, with no deaths), compared to 6.7% of patients who received a placebo (41/612 hospitalized with 10 subsequent deaths), with high statistical significance (p<0.0001). In the overall study population through Day 28, no deaths were reported in patients who received PAXLOVID™ as compared to 10 (1.6%) deaths in patients who received placebo.

Those extra two days (three versus five) could make a huge difference.

Who is the market for this? The assumption is that you give it ASAP and people want to take it. If people aren’t interested in vaccinations they may not want it either, and the vaccines are already very effective at preventing these issues.

The vaccines are 92–95% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. (They also reduce spread significantly.) That's great.

However, that means something like this is still very useful because of that 5–8%, especially for the elderly and the immunosuppressed, etc.

(I share your skepticism anti vaxxers would be interested in an effective treatment.)

I'd say that this will appeal to people who are covid vaccine skeptical. If you're skeptical of the mRNA vaccines, you'd probably be in favor of this treatment than the vaccines.

Because _absolutely_ _anything_ is less dangerous than mRNA.

mRNA has potential to be dangerous. There is nothing inherently dangerous in what our bodies already use as building instructions, nor is there evidence to suggest current mRNA vaccines cause any of these theoretical issues.

Yeah, plus on top of that, anything has the potential to be dangerous. Take, for example, water. Everybody knows about its positive sides, and about most of the negative ones.

But 99% of people don't know that water can kill you. I'm not talking about drowning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

If the most benign substance on the surface on the planet can kill you, anything can.

I have bad news for you (unless it was irony, which I can't rule out): the SARS-CoV2 virus contains its genome as RNA that is used directly (IIRC) as mRNA. Because it's needed for the protein synthesis to build new virus particles. This is true for every virus, BTW: they either contain RNA that can be used by the cell for protein synthesis (i.e. mRNA) or they do synthesize (or make the cell synthesize) the mRNA based on their genome, one way or another.

So no matter what, you'll get the viral mRNA in your body. Either through infection or through the vaccine. The vaccine just contains a small fragment and it does not proliferate. Unlike the virus.

I'm not so certain. People who for whatever irrational reason don't want an mRNA vaccine can take a viral vector vaccine. Yet they don't.

Monoclonal antibodies get less pushback https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/health/covid-antibody-reg...

I think there's also some "it won't happen to me" mentality that quickly disappears once it does (which is far too late for a vaccine)

I suppose some people would lump me in with "anti-vaxxer" because I don't want to get the Covid vaccine.

I'm not anti-vax, btw. I have a medical condition that requires me to receive regular vaccination against several diseases, and I'm strict about doing that on time.

I've made a calculated decision in the case of this specific vaccine based on that fact that I've now had Covid twice (first time was a bit nasty, second time was very mild) and have acquired fairly robust natural immunity.

According to almost all of the research I've read, natural immunity is at least as effective as the vaccine, which makes sense to me. Our bodies (if healthy) tend to be pretty good at this stuff.

The vaccine carries risk, all medical treatments do. When I calculate my baseline risk - very healthy, fit, no cormobidities, etc..., couple it with my acquired natural immunity, my chances of a negative outcome from Covid asymptotically approach zero. This appears to me to be less risk than the vaccine introduces.

I say all this to describe my mindset, I think a lot of people share it. Lumping everyone that choses based on a risk calculation to not receive the vaccine as "anti-vaxxer" is a common thing that people do (though I believe it is wrong).

All that being said, my primary point is that if I got Covid again, I'd absolutely be receptive to a therapeutic like this.

My decision against getting the vaccine was entirely risk based. At the point where I've contracted the illness again, however unlikely, the risk has been realized and I would 100% be receptive to taking this therapeutic if my doctor recommended it.

The thing is, you're not representative of unvaccinated folks. You're an extreme outlier. Most of them haven't done this research.

In my opinion, if you're nice and wear a mask in crowded conditions, don't go around hanging especially indoors in big groups, your position is kind of ok.

Though I'd still look at the numbers to check if vaccines reduce infection rates and rate of spread. Because if that's true, it might be worth getting vaccinated to protect others a bit more.

Your priors probably need updating as natural immunity as the OP describes appears to be much more robust, esp compared to the J&J after a year. Also vaccinated people spread delta, so everyone is getting it on some time scale.

You > Your priors probably need updating as natural immunity as the OP describes appears to be much more robust, esp compared to the J&J after a year.

Me > Though I'd still look at the numbers to check if vaccines reduce infection rates and rate of spread.

Thankfully I said that already.

> Also vaccinated people spread delta, so everyone is getting it on some time scale.

That's not guaranteed, though. Just like not everyone on the planet will ever get all the strands of flu or cold or whatever. Through natural immunity + vaccinations at some point the disease can just die down and through a simple rotation you could avoid it (i.e. everyone else gets it at a time when you're not around so you're spared).

Plus the time scale is important. In November 2019 we didn't have any vaccines, now we have 4 that are approved on a wide scale (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, AZ) plus a bunch of others with widespread usage but a less stellar reputation (Sputnik, the Chinese ones) plus another bunch coming soon <<and>> this very topic is about a drug for curing it. And another slightly less effective drug has also been approved recently, from Merck. That's... 24 months after the initial outbreak. Who knows what 24 more months will bring?

> Also vaccinated people spread delta

Vaccinated people? Much less so than the unvaccinated.

Double vaccinated people are 60-75% less likely to catch even asymptomatic COVID. If infected, they are 50% less likely to transmit it onwards to others. These are Delta figures.

“Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59077036

(Article contains link to the Lancet study)

That happens in breakthrough infections, and the goal of the vaccine is to reduce the number of breakthroughs, which it does successfully.

From the Lancet study linked in the article:

> The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals.

That's a misleading line, referring to peak viral load. If you read the rest of the article (or probably the study abstract), you will see vaccinated people are infectious for less time.

It’s less, but you have to factor the ^(n) interactions over years.

Vaccinated people will spread without even knowing, this is already the main way of spread in many areas with very high vaccination rates.

This is exactly right and is maybe the primary factor in why infection rates sky rocketed (year over year) in places that had high vaccination rates.

I hear you and your argument sounds rational. I wonder what do you think about receiving it for the sake of potentially vulnerable people around you. Just to reduce the likelihood of spreading it to someone who, unlike you, might be in real danger.

I personally didn’t mind the side effects, but mainly got it because I thought: What if I get Covid and give it to someone and something happens to them? And then I thought that it still worths the risk.

Of course no one should blame you if you want to care for yourself but I’m interested to know your feelings on this.

It’s rational argument especially now that we know vaccinated people spread this endemic virus.

Your mindset should be: everyone is going to get this, probably multiple times in your life, vaccines reduce the symptoms, but not as effectively as having survived covid.

I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated to protect themselves against severe symptoms, but that does little to protect vulnerable people. Vaccinated people also transmit the virus. Since the virus is endemic and can't be eradicated, everyone will be exposed multiple times throughout their lives.

But apparently vaccinated people only transmit the virus if it’s a breakthrough case. If that’s the case then the transmission is reduced in more vaccinated populations compared to unvaccinated.

Please stop repeating misinformation. Vaccination has only a temporary and limited effect on reducing transmission.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

It interesting that some people even when faced with such an articulate and easy to read article still resist understanding it so that their beliefs are not challenged.

> My decision against getting the vaccine was entirely risk based.

You say that, but you ended up catching COVID twice. Was the second time post the availability of vaccines?

Maybe if they're hesitant for irrational reasons. But if they're hesitant for rational reasons, mRNA vaccines and modified adenovirus vaccines are both new for mass use.

There are some inactivated virus vaccines which would be best for people who want to avoid new vaccine types, but AFAIK they haven't even been tested in the US.

I had one vaccine dose with severe issues. So maybe I'm skeptical, I won't get a second or third dose. Most people in this camp will just use ivermectin. Including myself, it works and is safe.

The antiviral mechanism of Ivermectin involves the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1 in the host. It can and has lead to death when improperly dosed.

Anything can lead to death when improperly dosed.

The size of dose you are talking about would be only possible to take if you were contemplating suicide.

You left a lot out in regards to the mechanisms of action: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

This article has been retracted 5 months ago. So basically right after publication [1] .

[1] https://pubpeer.com/publications/EDF9109EE29DF2340379B562365...

Yeah it does appear to be a crap article.

There is no evidence ivermectin works against COVID. There is still one large study running, I think, that might show a small effect, but definitely not a big effect.

Sorry you had a severe issue with your vaccine.

That larger study is only doing three days of doses which unfortunately isn't enough in most cases.

I had a hardened blood clot surgically removed off my scalp the other day. Was in a vein right by my temple. When the report comes back confirming I'm hoping it'll get me a proper scan.

> There is no evidence ivermectin works against COVID

Does that mean that there is no evidence that it doesn't work either? :)

The scientific method generally doesn't prove negatives. In this case, a trial is done where one group is given ivermectin and the other is given sugar pills (placebo). Their health outcomes are compared. If you have enough people in the trial and there is enough of a difference between the outcomes of the 2 groups then you say you have evidence that ivermectin is effective.

The well run trials to this point don't show a significant difference between the groups. The ivermectin advocates say that the trials have not been run correctly for various reasons like dosage, timing, etc. More trials can be run to try to address these concerns. This can be repeated any number of times but at some point people will give up trying if no effect is found.

Or they'll say that the supply chain issues have forced the US to start using larger 5G spyware-mindcontrol whatevers, so they now they need people to take a pill.

Or that big pharma wasn't making enough money off ivermectin, so they invented a new pseudo-drug or something.

When you believe that core institutions are worse than inept and actively work against you, you can justify anything. I'd call it a coin toss whether they're for or against.

And unfortunately the window for this closes before a skeptic will get desperate. Once people go on a vent they appear to become open minded to other treatment options.

I think skepticism of vaccines largely doesn't transfer to the broader medical field. The ineffective fad treatments (ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) are still medicine, but are still "popular" with vaccine skeptics. It's not rational, but I think vaccine skepticism is largely not rational to begin with.

Anecdotally, hearing from doctors working in COVID wards, they consist almost entirely of anti-vaxxers who are now seeking (and receiving) treatments only recently approved. So while not everyone will take this, I think probably many would once they have symptoms.

That said, this does work better it seems if taken early, before the anti-vax sentiment may have worn off. Hard to say.

What it does signal is really the "end of the pandemic". We have both a vaccine (now approved for kids) and a cure. That sounds like it to me.

This. Being antivax when one has 93% if not facing the virus ≠ refusing drugs when infected. At that point, it’s worth doing everything because the risk is realized.

The first three days of symptoms for an anti-vaxxer are obviously just a flu, because covid is fake. It's not covid until they're hooked up to a machine...

There are many who won't even get a test now, to check if it's COVID. They ride it out, and won't know if they just had a flu, cold, or COVID. And thus it seems we've currently plateaued in case counts in the US :(

Check out Reddit.com/r/hermancainaward for this exactly

How does knowing the name of your infection help you? If I'm sick I'm going to stay home and rest, not run to a test clinic out of pure curiosity.

A lab in the UK performing PCR tests messed up big time, and returned 40 000 false positives.

40 000 people forced to work by their employers, who then spread it to colleagues and customers, because they had a respiratory disease but ‘it isn’t COVID’.

COVID is particularly bad, but employees should also be allowed to stay home and rest, to not spread the cold and flu.

The fad treatments are "still medicine," but crucially are not generally approved of by the "mainstream medical establishment." This lack of approval is the key feature of these treatments.

> This lack of approval is the key feature of these treatments.

Lack of approval + length of use as medicine. There's a narrative that drug X has been used for 50 years (despite what it's used for) and therefore the pharma industry is uninterested in its success because they can't get rich off of it.

The latter is a common thread, along the lines of "what THEY don't want you to know."

But this makes absolutely no sense. Plenty of previously approved drugs, such as anticoagulants and dexamethasone, are part of the current standard of care; and their effectiveness has unambiguously been borne out by the data with multiple independent studies / analyses that all agree.

So why are THEY for these but against ivermectin?

Of course the whole idea of THEY is nutty. The idea that there is this level of coordination / cooperation among pharma companies is ridiculous enough to be the punchline of a joke.

You only make it ridiculous, it's actually really simple. Bureaucrats in agencies have their procedures and their agenda. Very little coordination is needed to ignore some controversial medication, associated with poor countries and antivaxers, when there are other things they can appear to be working on.

Many people sick with COVID are not getting this "standard of care" you suggest exists. Just tylenol and good luck. So those other drugs are not very far from ivermectin in terms of accessibility. All effective drugs are controlled and access is not given to the broad public, only to doctors and pharmacists, and many of these gatekeepers keep them from the sick people. You have to be lucky and have a good doctor who cares about you, not just about following what government agencies tell him to do. Then he may give both "unproblematic" stuff like heparines and also more "controversial" stuff like ivermectin.

All that stuff about access to quality health care is totally true, but I don’t see how it’s relevant. Ivermectin is being described as a preventative drug comparable to the actual COVID vaccines, not merely a treatment once you’re already sick.

Are these patients only being given Tylenol hospitalized? Because that would strain credulity.

The FDA regulates the marketing of drugs, not the practice of medicine. Physicians can prescribe whatever they want. Treatment guidelines are determined entirely by practicing physicians.

Uptodate is a good resource to check out if you want to see for yourself what clinical guidelines look like, and the type of evidence they are supported by.

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-management-in-hos...

Unfortunately, it's the opposite.

Anti-Vaxx people seem to absolutely love non-vax treatments.

I don't know if the rationalization is sound, but I'm not sure it's really that.

The anti-vaxx stigma pre-COVID I think has had it's toll.

The notion of 'government pushing you to take something' as well.

Whereas, 'you get sick, you take a pill' is an easy concept.

My fear is that a lot of people won't bother with a vax if they think there's a 'cure'.

I think the main difference is one has to necessarily take on vaccine risk without catching covid, so you balance chance of vax complications vs chance of getting covid multiplied by chance of getting bad case of covid.

So 1 * P(bad vax) vs P(getting covid) * P(bad covid case).

While most of other proposed treatments are after you already got it.

So P(bad side effects) vs 1 * P(bad covid case).

Depending on your priors and health, those balance very differently.

Also, if the new pill ends up as effective as they say it is, there is no reason to push for 100% vax uptake anymore -- it would turn covid into a slightly more dangerous cold.

> one has to necessarily take on vaccine risk without catching covid

Thankfully that risk is tiny.

> Also, if the new pill ends up as effective as they say it is, there is no reason to push for 100% vax uptake anymore -- it would turn covid into a slightly more dangerous cold.

No, vaccination remains far cheaper. Mass vaccination also reduces the risk of mutation, and of infection others.

If everybody gets vaccinated AND this anti viral is widely available for those infected, COVID will be well and truly deranged.

> Mass vaccination also reduces the risk of mutation, and of infection others.

Only if the vaccine is effective enough. With these moderately effective vaccines, there is a danger that breakthrough cases will generate new variants.

This is drivel. First, even against Delta, the vaccines remain some of the most effective vaccines ever, at preventing severe disease.

Second, COVID just doesn't mutate that much considering how prevalent it is, in part due to RNA proofreading.

Moreover, no, emperical evidence shows the neutralizing antibody effect of vaccines decreases the spread of variants.

> Moreover, no, emperical evidence shows the neutralizing antibody effect of vaccines decreases the spread of variants.

The world started vaccinating in January - 10 months ago. You won't even begin to know the true effectiveness of the vaccine and its outcomes until at least one more year goes by ey? Then you can begin to compare year over year health outcomes in highly vaccinated groups, vs unvaccinated, in the same region (same viral seasonality profile), across age groups. I can't wait to see regional all cause mortality with accurately age (and other vars) adjusted data between the vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Well, kind of.

1) There really is no such thing as 'Vaccine Risk' in the material sense, any more than we would us language such as 'Flying Risk'. Esp. in the US where thee is no AZ vaccine, the risk is negligible.

'The Vaccine Risk' in the minds of many people isn't consistent with the reality, and it's a major communications problem.

Anti-vaxxers are internalizing and propagandizing a degree of risk that just isn't real, leading to bad health outcomes.

Sure, technically, it's a risk, but so is anything else.

2) 'No push for 100% Vaccine' - maybe not for '100%' but we really need to push hard on vaccines.

COVID is not scary because it's excessively deadly. It's scary because it's excessively viral, meaning, it's a community disease, less so an individual disease.

Stopping COVID means stoping the spread, not trying to cure people when they get it.

With 95% vaccination, R0 drops below 1 and so hospitalization rates are low, we can focus on the hard cases.

With 0% vaccination and a 85% effective drug, well, 'everyone' will get COVID, and a scary number of them will die.

The 'Best Answer' by far in a world where vaccines are very safe, very cheap, and very effective - is to get 'as many as we can' vaccinated. And then use the expensive drugs on the hard cases.

For endemic viruses that also spread through domestic pets 95% becomes unobtainable unless we start going after the 100,000,000 domestic pets in the US alone.

We don't know the likelihood that it spreads through pets, pets also have owners who make up the entirety of their interactions (ie pets don't take the bus, go to restaurants, go to work or school) so of owners are vaxxed we're kosher.

As for endemic, yes, a problem, but of a different kind.

All risks are relative, yes. Covid risk is also negligible for some groups (like small children), it is very likely very comparable or smaller than the tiny vaccine risk. There is a lot of propagandizing degrees of risk across all tribes -- democrats wildly overestimating risk of hospitalization and republicans wildly underestimating it.

But what about 75% vaccination (lots of countries are there already or very close) and 85% effective drug? How much effort much be spent on hunting down every last antivaxxer and how many side effects of that are acceptable? (like destroying public support for vaccine mandates in general, creating nice shiny tools for the next wannabe authoritarian, etc)

Most people see themselves as healthy and thus in the pool of "very unlikely to have complications from COVID-19" pool. Argue with that however you want (people being dishonest with their own perception of health), but that's how they see it. So taking preventative measures because it is forced down their throats seems hostile. Made worse that 1) vax won't stop the spread, or we would have seen that by now, and 2) we need to boost the vax every few months? That sounds highly suspect to a lot of people.

If you were at risk, you can get vaccinated, why force a healthy person? (The answer is mostly for the folks who can't vaccinate, but those folks are screwed any way you look at this pandemic if we are honest).

Not to mention, everyone I know knows at least one person who had a stroke within weeks of getting one of the "vaccines", I know three. Previous to this past year I've known one person in my entire life that had a stroke, and it was my wife's uncle who was in his 90s.

You can't do stats like this. Even if it seems like a small error or being overly pedantic, it doesn't work for a pretty large number of obvious and less obvious reasons.

Vaccine side effect tracking is done pretty thoroughly, so if what you see would be a real and generic phenomenon, it would have been noticed by now.

Right. The official estimate by the CDC is that 1 in 40 vaccine injuries is reported.

None of the 3 I personally know were (suppose that's just anecdotal also). The one received the second dose 3 days before a major stroke, and massive blood clots. I'm sure it was tOtAlLy UnReLaTeD.

Nobody can tell you based on one case whether it was related or not. That's the point. And that's why they have to report every death or serious injury within 30 days of vaccination. At least here, in the EU. No matter what. If you get hit by a bus, it should be reported and recorded. Exactly because there is no other way to find rare side effects.

> The official estimate by the CDC is that 1 in 40 vaccine injuries is reported.

Source?

My friend's mom technically died in a clinical sense 5 minutes post first jab while still in the parking lot under observation. My other friend's brother dropped dead exactly 36 hours post 2nd jab. Both were zapped back to life. One of them had a pre-existing heart condition. I know at least one ER RN that readily admits they're seeing a high increase in ER cases of young (20s) people with various neurological and cardiac issues 1-14 days post vaccine (and are almost never treating them as vaccine-caused issues hence they stay unreported). The apologists will say things like "but you don't know it was the vaccine". Sure, you're never 100% positive about anything dealing with as complex system as a human body. What you should do is start with "what has changed recently", and almost always the patients that my RN wife handles say "I've been recently vaccinated.".

No, the vaccine is fairly detrimental to the spread of COVID.

Overwhelmingly, the numbers of people in Hospitals are unvaxxed.

In BC, the last report I saw for a region had almost 100% of people below 50 in intensive care unvaxxed, almost the same numbers for seniors.

Rates of spread are actually coming down even while business activity expands, vaccines are a potent part of this. Not perfect, but a major component.

So again: COVID is a community problem, less so an individual one. 'Stopping the Dominos' from dropping is much better than trying to lift all the dominos up after they fell with drugs.

"So taking preventative measures because it is forced down their throats seems hostile."

It's not hostile to the 80-90% of people in most advanced nations who have basic civil maturity. It's a mild distraction with obvious individual and group benefits, to the point where I have a hard time understanding lack of participation (yes, it's very easy to understand hesitancy and hostility to being required to do something, but not to the level where people actually would avoid doing something obviously beneficial).

I remember when smoking was banned indoors, I get that people were a begrudged, but I think in reality most people 'got it'.

This is true, however we are pretty certain about the numbers and they are overwhelmingly point towards getting the vaccine. (Maybe except for the very young, by witch I mean under 25 maybe under 20. But I don't know those numbers, so that might even not be a question either.)

One thing to keep in mind is that P(getting covid) is about 1. But for sure greater than 50%, especially if people don't vaccinate in large numbers (I mean others, of course) and if we do away with masks and restrictions.

When doing this kind of comparison, vaccines are tricky, because if you vaccinate close to 100%, then you'll have very few cases, so P(getting covid) will be rather small and then it will seem that the vaccines may not be worth it. But if you don't, then it will be high and that's what you should base your decision on. BTW, this is why antivaxxery could become such a phenomenon lately (even before covid): too few children died or got paralyzed in the past quite a few decades so the usual diseases somehow started to seem not such a big deal. Because people just didn't experience the other side of the equation anymore.

Also, on a side note, I'd expect that an antiviral will have more side effects than a vaccine.

This is also the same line of thinking that pushes for more knee replacements than dietician and gym trainer appointments. For some reason preventative thinking is alien.

No money in preventative thinking. People want the convenience of the magic pill, people don't want the lifestyle change.

> My fear is that a lot of people won't bother with a vax if they think there's a 'cure'.

Interesting. Indeed, should people bother with a vax if there's a highly effective cure? Is it worth all the teeth-gnashing and hair pulling on the part of the medical establishment, political establishment and media about people who would rather get COVID than get the vaccine? IMO this cure (once it starts rolling out ofc) is a reason to start rolling back vaccine and mask mandates rather than impose more mandates.

[Disclaimer: Fully vaxxed, will take a booster, etc]

Then you have the issue of people continuing to spread it to those who can't take a vaccine, including the immunocompromised.

There is also the worry of the effects of long covid. Just yesterday I was reading a thread on here of people complaining about experiences of their loved ones with long term covid after effects not being able to find relief from doctors because, well, we still don't even know what causes it. Better to avoid an infection that let a virus ravage through your body hoping medication can reverse all the effects on the body

> spread it to those who can't take a vaccine, including the immunocompromised.

I agree we should get vaccinated to reduce spread but, good news, this is wrong. UK clinical guidelines[1] state the immunocompromised and the immunosuppressed should get vaccinated.

In fact, they basically recommend everybody be vaccinated. Pregnant? Yes. Mild allergies? Yes. History of anaphylaxis caused by a specific ingredient in the vaccine? Speak to a a specialist who should offer (where possible) an alternative vaccine.

Moreover we know two doses of the vaccines produce an antibody response in the immunosuppressed.

That said, three doses is a good idea[2] to boost that response to a more typical level.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-the-gree...

[2] https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/138026987700974387... and preceding thread

"should people bother with a vax if there's a highly effective cure?"

Yes. COVID danger is it's virality, not it's lethality.

100% vaccinated population even at only 85% effectiveness means R0 is well below 1 and COVID cannot spread.

100% of COVID patients treated at 85% effectiveness of antiviral therapy means probably well over 1/2 the population still gets COVID, that's devastating.

If this were about a non-communicable disease, then probably the vaccine would be a slightly better idea, but due to virality there's no doubt vaxxes are better.

The best is to have both.

Finally, the vaxx is $20, antiviral is $700, which is material.

That said, if the 'cure' were 100% perfect, no side effects, cost $1 and could be given at any time after infection and prevents any further adverse effects, then we could probably just settle on that if we had to.

I don't suspect we're going to hear a lot about this in the press, because the 'narrative' still needs to be 'get vaccinated'. What will happen is the CFR will come down to to this and other measures behind the scenes so to speak.

Unless this thing comes down to $50 and is something any doctor can prescribe willy-nilly easy-peasy in which case I think there would be a big media campaign to 'inform us'.

> Who is the market for this?

Wealthy people.

COVID-19 is not the only coronavirus!

If this drug is safe and can be made sufficiently cheap, it could be a great treatment for most kinds of common cold.

Why suffer for weeks with cold symptoms if you can simply spray this up your nose and feel better?

It could (potentially) be used similarly to Tamiflu.

Alas you are a tad optimistic.

The majority of the common cold cases is caused by rhinoviruses. But yes, like 20% (ballpark) are caused by coronaviruses.

Hope anti vaxxer will take it. To free up hospitals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com