Off Topic SARS-CoV-2 Covid-19

Those examples are hardly unique to London either.

 

Interesting
Randomised UK trials of hydroxychloroquine

you can sign up if you fit the criteria, and you’re prepared to risk side effects

https://sentry.phc.ox.ac.uk/sentry/principle/live/survey/open?id=screening&sc=JAM

https://sentry.phc.ox.ac.uk/sentry/principle/live/survey/pis

 

As I read that, and I am certainly no expert, given you need to be displaying the symptoms of the virus, and be in one of the at risk groups, the side effects seem a relatively low risk.

If nothing else, anyone volunteering would be getting more medical attention than they may otherwise get, and be helping others in the process.

"With any medicine, including ones that are already used within the NHS, there is a risk of side effects. For the treatment we are using in this trial, the common side effects (experienced by less than 10% of people who take the medication) are:

Hydroxychloroquine

 abdominal pain;
 decreased appetite;
 diarrhoea;
 headache;
 nausea;
 skin reactions;
 vomiting."

 

please log in to view this image

 

He's even moved further away from the microphone and cameraman.

 

For what it’s worth, and I’m no expert either I’d tend to agree.
I’ve seen much more critical comments about the drug, but they’ve been from the States where it’s a very political issue (given Trump supporting its use before successful trials)

 

Hydroxychloroquine is an immune suppressant as well as an anti malarial, which is why it’s used for diseases like rheumatoid arthritis where the body’s immune system attacks healthy tissue.

the evidence for its use in covid-19 is that very ill patients go to a stage called a cytokine storm where the immune system goes into overdrive and causes problems for vital organs like kidneys, liver, heart. Cytokine storm is what made Spanish Flu so lethal too. So there is tentative evidence that the drug could help quash cytokine storm and let the body heal itself. We won’t know for sure if it works until we get some data from proper clinical trials, and it takes time to gather it and then number crunch the data. (Compare like for like patients - tons of variables like age, weight, smokers, diabetes etc)

it seems to me that there would be very limited benefits for anyone taking it at the moment unless they were very ill and under doctors supervision. Given its known side effects regarding heart arrhythmia, the risk of taking it prophylactically (ie just in case) would out weigh the potential benefit for me. Anyone touting it for everyone, healthy or not, because “what have you got to lose” would and should be prosecuted for promoting unlicensed health advice in normal times.

 

I'm sure youre right DMD, never heard of him TBH. Having said that some (not all of the questions) will warrant a response in time..

 

He was Labour's equivalent of Dominic Cummings. Yes he might be bitter etc etc. But actually the questions are all very relevant and are the sort of questions that SHOULD be being asked.

 

I can't respond to that without breaking the board rules. Let's just say that I disagree.

 

Is that ready for the autumn for all and sundry - ie mass availability. Or simply ready to start production?

 

Ignore the political undertone and there’s some good sense in this article.

https://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-politics-of-covid-19-busy-parks-and-public-blame/

 

Apart from the fact that people are acting like they don’t give a toss. I work in retail and have never known such hostility at times to attempts to social distance.

 

How many Hull people have died? It's just I was told on Thursday that one had and I can't seem to find anything to back that up.

 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...hull-east-yorkshire-coronavirus-death-4039776

I wonder if Hull is being included in 'East Yorkshire' figures? [no evidence for that]... as released by the Hospital Trust not the CCG??

https://www.hullccg.nhs.uk/2020/04/...to-cope-with-demand-during-covid-19-outbreak/

 

I hope none at all. What I don't understand is are post mortems carried out on all the people who have sadly passed away recently?

 

Good question. In my experience, academics aren't always up to speed on the practicalities of scaling up a lab scale medicine that's been tested on animals and a few humans, to full scale manufacturing and clinical trials and license application. While you can take business risks in doing things in parallel instead of waiting for success in a traditional stage-by-stage process, some things just take time and can't be speeded up. "80% chance of success" does not say ready for all and sundry by the autumn to me.

There is a race to get a vaccine to market as soon as possible. We desperately need one, but we also need it to be safe for as well as for it to work. That is done by clinical trials - and you can't rush these, they take as long as they take. But we need to know if any side-effects are present - if you only test 100 patients, you are not going to pick up side effects that affect 1 in 200 patients. Scale up to 20,000,000 real-life patients with a 1 in 200 side effect and suddenly you have 100,000 people with problems. If the side effect is a bit of a headache for a few hours, then it's not really an issue. But if it's something worse, you could end up with more problems from the vaccine than the disease.

Politicians sticking their oar into this process worries me. Scientists at drug companies and government agencies wrangle over the data for new medicines for months, and the decision to grant a license is always made on the science and on a good balance of benefit to risk. The last thing we need is to rush something out that hasn't been tested enough under pressure from those who don't know any better, only to find that it's doing harm instead.

 

Good post that.