forums

Sabag Gots Da Rona

I also heard Covid responds well to steroids when given early, but too far into the illness, they're harmful.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
“The best” that money can buy is irrelevant in this case.

The actual situation is as I explained above.

You have one unapproved monoclonal antibody treatment that is in extremely limited supply, is in early trails, is unproven for widespread use, and which carries a risk/benefit profile which is unclear due to lack of data, and is only available in extremely few cases under the FDA “compassionate use“ clause.

All other treatments are generally readily available.

And the above is only even a serious consideration for those that are either extremely ill, or are projected to be extremely ill.

If someone is only exhibiting minor symptoms, which in truth even most elderly people don’t exhibit the most severe symptoms, there may be more risk in aggressively treating them than just letting it run its course. So even readily available treatments like dexamethasone and remdesivir normally will only be given to those who either exhibit severe symptoms, are severely compromised or predicted to have a severe outcome.
Click to expand...
It’s not irrelevant. Chris Cristie and the President are both overweight and far from being young. They are up and about whereas other people have not faired so well. Bobby Bowden is 90, FFS, and is going to be released from the hospital soon. Nick Saban will survive this, and I would bet the house on it.
 
TheEye said:
It’s not irrelevant. Chris Cristie and the President are both overweight and far from being young. They are up and about whereas other people have not faired so well. Bobby Bowden is 90, FFS, and is going to be released from the hospital soon. Nick Saban will survive this, and I would bet the house on it.
Click to expand...

What do these examples prove? You’re big on generalities, and extremely light or nonexistent on specifics
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
“The best” that money can buy is irrelevant in this case.

The actual situation is as I explained above.

You have one unapproved monoclonal antibody treatment that is in extremely limited supply, is in early trails, is unproven for widespread use, and which carries a risk/benefit profile which is unclear due to lack of data, and is only available in extremely few cases under the FDA “compassionate use“ clause.

All other treatments are generally readily available.

And the above is only even a serious consideration for those that are either extremely ill, or are projected to be extremely ill.

If someone is only exhibiting minor symptoms, which in truth even most elderly people don’t exhibit the most severe symptoms, there may be more risk in aggressively treating them than just letting it run its course. So even readily available treatments like dexamethasone and remdesivir normally will only be given to those who either exhibit severe symptoms, are severely compromised or predicted to have a severe outcome.
Click to expand...
Why'd they give it to the other guy so early if they didn't think it was safe and effective?
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
Why'd they give it to the other guy so early if they didn't think it was safe and effective?
Click to expand...

Because the preliminary data looks solid, but it’s still a risk. It’s an educated guess that they think it is safe and effective based solely on preliminary data, which is not good enough to get it FDA approval for the general public.

It’s almost a calculated crapshoot using these agents. Although theoretically, they should help. Hydroxychlorowuine looked good in some of the preliminary data as well, and although these agents are now farther along, and at least one looks more promising, on the road to approval.

It’s just the nature of the beast...you need larger numbers for statistical significance.

Also, when using experimental treatments, the ethical protocol is for the physician to get the patient’s waiver to sign off, fully informing the patient of the risks involved. They can’t proceed without this.

Here’s an article that will give you a general idea where the two major competing agents stand in their progress toward approval in this class of treatment.

www.statnews.com

NIH paused Eli Lilly Covid-19 antibody trial because of safety concerns

It will be two weeks until there is news on a paused trial of Eli Lilly’s closely watched monoclonal antibody to treat Covid-19.
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com

Don’t let the title discourage you, it’s unclear which arm of the study has the safety concern, placebo or treatment arm, but either way, it just makes my point that there is risk in using experimental drugs for any patient.
 
Last edited:
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Because the preliminary data looks solid, but it’s still a risk. It’s an educated guess that they think it is safe and effective based solely on preliminary data, which is not good enough to get it FDA approval for the general public.

It’s almost a calculated crapshoot using these agents. Although theoretically, they should help. Hydroxychlorowuine looked good in some of the preliminary data as well, and although these agents are now farther along, and at least one looks more promising, on the road to approval.

It’s just the nature of the beast...you need larger numbers for statistical significance.

Also, when using experimental treatments, the ethical protocol is for the physician to get the patient’s waiver to sign off, fully informing the patient of the risks involved. They can’t proceed without this.

Here’s an article that will give you a general idea where the two major competing agents stand in their progress toward approval in this class of treatment.

www.statnews.com

NIH paused Eli Lilly Covid-19 antibody trial because of safety concerns

It will be two weeks until there is news on a paused trial of Eli Lilly’s closely watched monoclonal antibody to treat Covid-19.
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com

Don’t let the title discourage you, it’s unclear which arm of the study has the safety concern, placebo or treatment arm, but either way, it just makes my point that there is risk in using experimental drugs for any patient.
Click to expand...
Now the WHO says Remdesivir doesn't work.

www.bbc.com

Covid: Remdesivir 'has little or no effect' on survival, says WHO

Drug manufacturer Gilead has questioned the findings, from a clinical study by the WHO.
www.bbc.com
 
TheEye said:
It proves Saban will live, and if I’m wrong you feel free to let me know.
Click to expand...

What you posted gives zero proof that Saban ‘will live”. Based on what we know about the virus and Saban, he will live not because of any drugs, but because as far as we know he is a healthy man, and even if you are over 60, if you are overall healthy and have no severe comorbidities, you still have well over a 99% chance of living.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Now the WHO says Remdesivir doesn't work.

www.bbc.com

Covid: Remdesivir 'has little or no effect' on survival, says WHO

Drug manufacturer Gilead has questioned the findings, from a clinical study by the WHO.
www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw it this morning.

Two things. The study is not peer reviewed yet. So we have to wait for that. Also, I haven’t seen the study design.

Secondly, and just as importantly, there is no dexamthasone in any of the treatment arms, apparently. Remdesivir, at least in the US, is most frequently administered with dexamethasone.

But anyway, this illustrates the point that all these treatments are experimental.

As an aside, what’s interesting is that Covid mortality seems to be much less today than it was back in March/April. The question is...why?
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Yeah, I saw it this morning.

Two things. The study is not peer reviewed yet. So we have to wait for that. Also, I haven’t seen the study design.

Secondly, and just as importantly, there is no dexamthasone in any of the treatment arms, apparently. Remdesivir, at least in the US, is most frequently administered with dexamethasone.

But anyway, this illustrates the point that all these treatments are experimental.

As an aside, what’s interesting is that Covid mortality seems to be much less today than it was back in March/April. The question is...why?
Click to expand...
Viruses weaken over as they spread, which is why most pandemics only last a couple of years. I know we've gotten better at early detection and treatment, but it's pretty hard to explain the declining CFR across the world other than a weakening virus.

If a 91 yr old overweight Bobby Bowden can beat it in a week or so...
 
JD08 said:
Viruses weaken over as they spread, which is why most pandemics only last a couple of years. I know we've gotten better at early detection and treatment, but it's pretty hard to explain the declining CFR across the world other than a weakening virus.

If a 91 yr old overweight Bobby Bowden can beat it in a week or so...
Click to expand...

Yeah we can go down with that theoretical rabbit hole as to what is happening with this virus, and other viruses in general. What are you saying may be true, at least with some viruses. I just don’t know with any certainty what’s happening.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Yeah we can go down with that theoretical rabbit hole as to what is happening with this virus, and other viruses in general. What are you saying may be true, at least with some viruses. I just don’t know with any certainty what’s happening.
Click to expand...
Nobody does, that's why it's hard to say. But the evolution cycle of a virus makes it less likely that we'll be having this same discussion a year from now.
 
Advertisement
I heard Saban grey shirted COVID 19 because he just scored a big committment from COVID 20.

Hard hitting virus with good length and potential to grow. High energy motor too.
 
TheEye said:
It’s not irrelevant. Chris Cristie and the President are both overweight and far from being young. They are up and about whereas other people have not faired so well. Bobby Bowden is 90, FFS, and is going to be released from the hospital soon. Nick Saban will survive this, and I would bet the house on it.
Click to expand...
That POTUS and Chistie are OBESE!!! Not overweight. For medical example, a man's natural weight could be 160 pounds ( 10% body fat. ) and weigh 173 or 176 pounds. Now that's overweight.
 
Advertisement
cway313 said:
This mf already tested negative 2 days later lmao. SEC can't be stooped.
Click to expand...
yep. They are saying that if he gets three negative tests within 72 hours - done by the SEC appointed lab, each one 24 hrs from the last- he can coach on Saturday..... They consider his first test to be a "false positive" He has one on Thursday. Nothing said about today yet.
 
Just got a positive for it too - what a buzz kill. A nice beat down of @$itt this weekend would be great!!!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top