ADVERTISEMENT

COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Children are walking petri-dishes. Many first time parents of kids who just entered pre-k or kinder found this out the hard way.

You want to achieve herd immunity faster, use children as the carrier. Of course there will be many deaths. Including grandma.
Yup, numbers made an interesting suggestion above.

An easy way to quickly get to 20% herd immunity would be to send kids back to school for a month, completely closed off from society with young teachers (under 25 or so).

He admitted this could never ethically happen, but just an interesting thought experiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU848789
Powerful article and data.

The Case for Reopening Schools
Lots of other countries have decided that it's time to take this step. Why is the US holding back?
"It would seem more rational to start by getting kids in school, then sending parents back to work."

https://www.wired.com/story/the-case-for-reopening-schools/

I am not convinced that closing schools in most of the country outside of NY/NJ was worthwhile. Anyone with kids can see the negative effects this has had on kids, and not to mention, that to a large extent older kids were still congregating during this time anyway.

Many kids, once schools were closed, ended up being cared for by their grandparents.

To me, it is disappointing that the unintended second and third level consequences in closures have been given almost no thought at all during this.
 
Children are walking petri-dishes. Many first time parents of kids who just entered pre-k or kinder found this out the hard way.

You want to achieve herd immunity faster, use children as the carrier. Of course there will be many deaths. Including grandma.

Yes, they are petri-dishes. That's why it is better to keep them in school for a pandemic where their personal risk for that particular pandemic is very low and not at home being taken care of by their grandparents.

If there's never an effective vaccine do we just close schools forever? If one takes 18 months, do we close an entire additional school year? What effect is this going to have on an entire generation of people? It is bad enough that we added trillions of expenditures with almost no thought at all as to how that will effect our kids.
 
Last edited:
I am not convinced that closing schools in most of the country outside of NY/NJ was worthwhile. Anyone with kids can see the negative effects this has had on kids, and not to mention, that to a large extent older kids were still congregating during this time anyway.

Many kids, once schools were closed, ended up being cared for by their grandparents.

To me, it is disappointing that the unintended second and third level consequences in closures have been given almost no thought at all during this.
+1
There was a lot of irrational hysteria in the beginning and many inconsistent policies. Some states are getting back to a good balance, so they can serve as a model for others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: texas tiger
Are the Georgia charts above the corrected ones with the dates in order?
They should be as those are from the AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution), the major paper for Atlanta that published the story criticizing an earlier chart. You can see the large dip every weekend when reported new cases/deaths drop off every Saturday and Sunday.
 
Yup, numbers made an interesting suggestion above.

An easy way to quickly get to 20% herd immunity would be to send kids back to school for a month, completely closed off from society with young teachers (under 25 or so).

He admitted this could never ethically happen, but just an interesting thought experiment.
I thought something similar with 18ish to 30ish age group. Ship them all off to Cancun for a month long spring break. Let them spread it amongst themselves, and then that segment of the population was good to go.
 
I thought something similar with 18ish to 30ish age group. Ship them all off to Cancun for a month long spring break. Let them spread it amongst themselves, and then that segment of the population was good to go.
I’m gonna continue with the thought experiment just for shits and giggles. Say there’s 110 million Americans aged 5-30 (roughly accurate). Say we can ship them off somewhere secluded, and say we exclude 10% who are at risk with obesity, diabetes, etc. (no idea if that’s remotely accurate). So we’re down to about 100 million young people. Let’s say we ship them off and just .005% die. Are we cool with 5,000 young deaths for 30% herd immunity?
 
I’m gonna continue with the thought experiment just for shits and giggles. Say there’s 110 million Americans aged 5-30 (roughly accurate). Say we can ship them off somewhere secluded, and say we exclude 10% who are at risk with obesity, diabetes, etc. (no idea if that’s remotely accurate). So we’re down to about 100 million young people. Let’s say we ship them off and just .005% die. Are we cool with 5,000 young deaths for 30% herd immunity?

Is there alcohol and contraceptives on this island? Depending on that answer you may come back with more or less than the 100 million.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATIOH and RU23
Yes, they are petri-dishes. That's why it is better to keep them in school for a pandemic where their personal risk for that particular pandemic is very low and not at home being taken care of by their grandparents.

If there's never an effective vaccine do we just close schools forever? If one takes 18 months, do we close an entire additional school year? What effect is this going to have on an entire generation of people? It is bad enough that we added trillions of expenditures with almost no thought at all as to how that will effect our kids.

At some point we need to return to normalcy - I don't disagree with that. But we need to be careful not to fall into the "tree falling in the forest" mind set. This virus had no impact to me, therefore it's not as bad as they say it is. Some are even saying it's all a hoax.

Also, I get the pain of small businesses and certain areas of the economy that are impacted. I get it, I really do. Especially working in Wall Street. However, I am not as concerned over the economy as others. Just like it is a survival of the fittest with this virus for humankind - it is the same for businesses. Some businesses will fall, others will rise. A person who can't go to the gym will purchase home gym equipment. While one business falters, another gains. In the end it will always work it self out. Money will flow somewhere - it always does. All JHO of course.
 
At some point we need to return to normalcy - I don't disagree with that. But we need to be careful not to fall into the "tree falling in the forest" mind set. This virus had no impact to me, therefore it's not as bad as they say it is. Some are even saying it's all a hoax.

Also, I get the pain of small businesses and certain areas of the economy that are impacted. I get it, I really do. Especially working in Wall Street. However, I am not as concerned over the economy as others. Just like it is a survival of the fittest with this virus for humankind - it is the same for businesses. Some businesses will fall, others will rise. A person who can't go to the gym will purchase home gym equipment. While one business falters, another gains. In the end it will always work it self out. Money will flow somewhere - it always does. All JHO of course.

If you missed it, I posted the McKinsey report on paths forward for public health and the economy and their strong opinion based on surveys of business leaders and their own information was that controlling virus outbreaks to near zero (like South Korea/Taiwan and others) is the best path forward for public health (obviously), but also for the economy, as greatly reducing uncertainty is the only way to inspire public/consumer confidence - it's a demand side issue, not a supply side one. It's a good read and is linked in my post below from the other day.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...ocial-distancing.191275/page-115#post-4562473
 
+1
There was a lot of irrational hysteria in the beginning and many inconsistent policies. Some states are getting back to a good balance, so they can serve as a model for others.
I'm not a huge fan of second guessing things or blaming somebody for how things have gone. I AM a fan of using the data we collected not to repeat our mistakes and learn for the future.

Shutting schools down was a fine decision at the time and served an immediate purpose not to initiate panic in parents due to possible exposure issues. It also gave experts time to collect data. However, it's now time to plan for the future because as others have said, this could be around for awhile.

And for those that don't know, I'm a first grade teacher who is more than aware of how much of a petri dish these kids are. That actually makes it more important to figure out how to do this right. We have a whole summer to figure it out, so let's do it.
 
I'm not a huge fan of second guessing things or blaming somebody for how things have gone. I AM a fan of using the data we collected not to repeat our mistakes and learn for the future.

Shutting schools down was a fine decision at the time and served an immediate purpose not to initiate panic in parents due to possible exposure issues. It also gave experts time to collect data. However, it's now time to plan for the future because as others have said, this could be around for awhile.

And for those that don't know, I'm a first grade teacher who is more than aware of how much of a petri dish these kids are. That actually makes it more important to figure out how to do this right. We have a whole summer to figure it out, so let's do it.
We call that a critique. It's done after an incident. And agree it's a great tool.
 
I'm not a huge fan of second guessing things or blaming somebody for how things have gone. I AM a fan of using the data we collected not to repeat our mistakes and learn for the future.

Shutting schools down was a fine decision at the time and served an immediate purpose not to initiate panic in parents due to possible exposure issues. It also gave experts time to collect data. However, it's now time to plan for the future because as others have said, this could be around for awhile.

And for those that don't know, I'm a first grade teacher who is more than aware of how much of a petri dish these kids are. That actually makes it more important to figure out how to do this right. We have a whole summer to figure it out, so let's do it.
Finally a good post and right on target. Guarantee our education hierarchy have no real plan same as with the State of New Jersey’s tax shortfall ( not from Covid) or pension problems for state employees... Don’t worry be happy... the longer you can prevent people from having a choice the more your personal power grows...
 
At some point we need to return to normalcy - I don't disagree with that. But we need to be careful not to fall into the "tree falling in the forest" mind set. This virus had no impact to me, therefore it's not as bad as they say it is. Some are even saying it's all a hoax.

Also, I get the pain of small businesses and certain areas of the economy that are impacted. I get it, I really do. Especially working in Wall Street. However, I am not as concerned over the economy as others. Just like it is a survival of the fittest with this virus for humankind - it is the same for businesses. Some businesses will fall, others will rise. A person who can't go to the gym will purchase home gym equipment. While one business falters, another gains. In the end it will always work it self out. Money will flow somewhere - it always does. All JHO of course.

I have to say that I disagree that you get it if you are talking about survival of the fittest for small business.

It's not a hoax. I actually think the death count is a bit higher than has been stated since the excess deaths over previous years is significantly larger in some places. That does not at all lessen the impacts of actions taken to try to fight the virus. Many of such actions have been needless, unsupported, and/or have had a negative impact when taking all factors into account.

Also, talking about returning to normal presents a false choice of everything or nothing. The lowest hanging fruit of preventing spread (i.e., very effective and minimal disruption to society) should absolutely be done.

Shoot, they didn't even necessarily need to have schools fully open. If they wanted to send half of the kids one week and the other half the next week, that would have been fine. The problem was no one actually stopped to think and come up with a solution other than "shutting everything down will accomplish the single goal of preventing virus spread." There never should have been a single goal; it should have been a balancing equation just like everything else in life.
 
Last edited:
Good video for the flu vs Covid argument.

There never has been a valid flu vs. COVID argument, at least not since we saw what was going on in Europe and then here. Without interventions or a cure/vaccine, this will very likely kill 1-2MM Americans eventually (the infection fatality rate of about 1% is 10X that of the flu and this will likely infect ~60% of the population, whereas the flu infects about 11.5% per year - simple math - that's 52X the 35K average number of flu deaths per year, which is 1.82MM). That's why we need interventions until we have a cure/vaccine.
 
I'm not a huge fan of second guessing things or blaming somebody for how things have gone. I AM a fan of using the data we collected not to repeat our mistakes and learn for the future.

Shutting schools down was a fine decision at the time and served an immediate purpose not to initiate panic in parents due to possible exposure issues. It also gave experts time to collect data. However, it's now time to plan for the future because as others have said, this could be around for awhile.

And for those that don't know, I'm a first grade teacher who is more than aware of how much of a petri dish these kids are. That actually makes it more important to figure out how to do this right. We have a whole summer to figure it out, so let's do it.
1. That's not how the internet works! :)
2. Based on the data/article I posted, kids don't seem to be spreading the virus, at least to adults.
 
President Trump has been taking hydroxychloroquine + Zn (and possibly Azithromycin) for ~10 days, as a preventative, despite there not being any evidence it works for that, despite there being low, but non-zero heart risks from taking HCQ, and despite the statement, below, from the AMA and others.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...chloroquine-prevent-covid-19-despite-n1209706

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists released a joint statement in April acknowledging "that some physicians and others are prophylactically prescribing medications currently identified as potential treatments for COVID-19."

"We strongly oppose these actions," the statement said. "We caution hospitals, health systems, and individual practitioners that no medication has been FDA-approved for use in COVID-19 patients."
 
President Trump has been taking hydroxychloroquine + Zn (and possibly Azithromycin) for ~10 days, as a preventative, despite there not being any evidence it works for that, despite there being low, but non-zero heart risks from taking HCQ, and despite the statement, below, from the AMA and others.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...chloroquine-prevent-covid-19-despite-n1209706

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists released a joint statement in April acknowledging "that some physicians and others are prophylactically prescribing medications currently identified as potential treatments for COVID-19."

"We strongly oppose these actions," the statement said. "We caution hospitals, health systems, and individual practitioners that no medication has been FDA-approved for use in COVID-19 patients."

Who knows if he's really taking it - he's been known to stretch the boundaries of truth before.

I would consider taking it if (1) I was certain I'd been exposed, and not just a minor exposure but a significant/close exposure, or (2) I tested positive and/or developed symptoms. If I wasn't sure I'd been exposed I don't think I would want it. So it's very possible he is lying, or he was definitely exposed and won't admit it.

@RUfubar , do you know any physicians who are using HCQ as a pre-exposure drug? Or post-exposure/early stage treatment? We all know it has failed the tests for advanced cases but as far as I know, we haven't had any results from good studies related to early use.
 
President Trump has been taking hydroxychloroquine + Zn (and possibly Azithromycin) for ~10 days, as a preventative, despite there not being any evidence it works for that, despite there being low, but non-zero heart risks from taking HCQ, and despite the statement, below, from the AMA and others.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...chloroquine-prevent-covid-19-despite-n1209706

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists released a joint statement in April acknowledging "that some physicians and others are prophylactically prescribing medications currently identified as potential treatments for COVID-19."

"We strongly oppose these actions," the statement said. "We caution hospitals, health systems, and individual practitioners that no medication has been FDA-approved for use in COVID-19 patients."
Maybe he was made aware of Boulware's results...LOL
 
Much more data in today in a paper by Joyner et al (preprint), evaluating the use of convalescent plasma in 5000 severely ill COVID-19 patients participating in the large observational trial (no control arm - essentially an emergency use "expanded access program") being run by the Mayo Clinic. Bottom line is it appears to be safe and "promising" with respect to lowering morality rates, although the study wasn't designed to evaluate that.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.12.20099879v1.full.pdf

First off they concluded that CP is generally "safe" in the context of not adding additional risk to patients - all 5000 patients had "severe or life-threatening" cases of COVID-19. With regard to effectiveness, the analysis wasn't designed to evaluate that specifically, but they shared some data on 7-day mortality and to me the most striking data was that of the 3,316 patients admitted to the ICU, 456 mortalities were observed (16.7% after adjustments) vs. the typical mortality rate for ICU patients of 57% - that's a 71% reduction in morality rate for patients in the ICU and this wasn't a 10-person study or even a 46-person study (with 60% mortality reduction with CP), like the one above. However, it was only a 7-day analysis and perhaps those mortality numbers will increase significantly over time - would be nice to know what percentage of deaths occur beyond 7 days for such severely ill patients.

Of the 1682 hospitalized patients not admitted to the ICU the 7-day mortality rate was 11.2% vs. 15-20% typical for hospitalized patients, more like a 25-45% reduction; again, this was a 7-day mortality rate. However, NYC hospitalization mortality rates are about 33%, so the overall hospitalization mortality rate for this study, so far at 7 days (so not complete data yet) of 14.9% would be a 55% reduction. As an aside, I was a bit confused here, though - I would have thought patients sick enough to eventually die would go into the ICU first.

EX-3vSaVcAo0ivW


Anyway, it's not time to go out and celebrate yet, as this was not a placebo (plasma without antibodies)/standard of care controlled randomized double blind clinical study (that is ongoing), meaning the study was not designed to evaluate efficacy of CP per se, as per the excerpt below. However, the data above, especially the ICU data, are still pretty impressive, IMO, although it's only 7-day mortality data, so it's not complete yet. It's also a little bit odd that they didn't include the 57% typical ICU mortality rate comment together with the 13.7% ICU mortality rate data in this study - it's almost as if they don't want people hyping the potentially positive result (which I'm trying not to do; just sharing the data).

Over the first seven days after the convalescent plasma transfusion, a total of 602 mortalities were observed. The overall seven-day mortality rate was estimated to be 14.9% (95% CI: 13.8%, 16.0%) using the product limit estimator; an estimate that was numerically higher than the crude estimate of 12.0% at day 7. Of the 3,316 patients admitted to the ICU, 456 mortalities were observed (16.7%, 95% CI: 15.3%, 18.1%). Of the 1,682 hospitalized patients not-admitted to the ICU, 146 mortalities were observed (11.2%, 95% CI: 9.5%, 12.9%)...

...Although this study was not designed to evaluate efficacy of convalescent plasma we note with optimism the relatively low mortality in treated patients. The case fatality rate of COVID-19 has been reported to be ~4% among all persons diagnosed with COVID-19 (2); however, the case fatality rate among hospitalized patients is much higher ~15-20% (3, 5) and even more so among patients admitted to the ICU (57%) (4). Thus, the seven-day mortality rate was 14.9% reported here is not alarming, particularly because some of these plasma transfusions may be characterized as attempts at rescue or salvage therapy in patients admitted to the ICU with multi-organ failure, sepsis and significant comorbidities.


In addition, it's also noteworthy that the study did not find any obvious evidence of "antibody dependent enhancement" (ADE), which is a theoretical concern of the use of convalescent plasma, which could lead to "deteriorated clinical condition after plasma transfusion secondary to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection or antibody-mediated proinflammatory effects." Limited evidence of this was seen with antibody therapies for other coronaviruses.

The absence of a toxicity signature with the use of convalescent plasma in individuals with COVID-19 implies that this phenomenon may be clinically inconsequential. COVID-19 is known to elicit high neutralizing antibody titers in individuals who have recently recovered from infection and three case series of convalescent plasma administration also describe no deleterious ADE effects after infusion (27-29).

More "promising" convalescent plasma data, this time from a Houston hospital that treated 25 patients with severe or life-threatening COVID infections. By day 14 post-transfusion, 19 (76%) patients improved from baseline: with 11 patients having been discharged and eight patients improved from baseline; three patients remained unchanged, three had deteriorated, and one patient died from a condition not caused by plasma transfusion. There were not adverse safety events related to the plasma infusion.

It's not quite clear if all 25 patients were considered ICU patients (where there is 57% mortality, as per the post above) or simply hospitalized patients (where there is 15-20% mortality), but the fact that the mortality rate was only 4% (and 20 of the patients have been discharged as of the publishing of the paper with only a couple still in the ICU) is at least encouraging. However, it should be noted that all of these patients were on other medications, such as HCQ/Az (100%), oral ribavirin (68%), remdesivir (10%) and IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab and methylprednisolone (72%), and there was no control group, so the data need to be taken with a grain of salt.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.08.20095471v1.full.pdf
 
Who knows if he's really taking it - he's been known to stretch the boundaries of truth before.

I would consider taking it if (1) I was certain I'd been exposed, and not just a minor exposure but a significant/close exposure, or (2) I tested positive and/or developed symptoms. If I wasn't sure I'd been exposed I don't think I would want it. So it's very possible he is lying, or he was definitely exposed and won't admit it.

@RUfubar , do you know any physicians who are using HCQ as a pre-exposure drug? Or post-exposure/early stage treatment? We all know it has failed the tests for advanced cases but as far as I know, we haven't had any results from good studies related to early use.

I just prescribed it yesterday to a prison guard and his his wifejust became overtly symptomatic. I did one of those informed consent speeches with them and they wanted it. much to my surprise the pharmacy gave it to them right away without even calling me. Most of the pharmacists do call regarding the hydroxychloroquine wanting to know the patients' status. And of course both the patients swear they feel better today. I did an NP swab on the wife today. He was diagnosed at the prison And thought he was just having allergic symptoms. She's actually more symptomatic than he is. I really didn't want to give it to them but they were sort of pressing me " for something".
 
+1
There was a lot of irrational hysteria in the beginning and many inconsistent policies. Some states are getting back to a good balance, so they can serve as a model for others.
wait so murphy should have shut down all public transportation but you also say its just the flu, but you also say don't do hysterical things like shutting down public transportation ?
 
Who knows if he's really taking it - he's been known to stretch the boundaries of truth before.

I would consider taking it if (1) I was certain I'd been exposed, and not just a minor exposure but a significant/close exposure, or (2) I tested positive and/or developed symptoms. If I wasn't sure I'd been exposed I don't think I would want it. So it's very possible he is lying, or he was definitely exposed and won't admit it.

@RUfubar , do you know any physicians who are using HCQ as a pre-exposure drug? Or post-exposure/early stage treatment? We all know it has failed the tests for advanced cases but as far as I know, we haven't had any results from good studies related to early use.
There is zero doubt in my mind that the only thing I'd do if I were diagnosed with COVID is to ask for convalescent plasma immediately. I'm astounded more people aren't making a big hoopla out of the results, even if they are observational/anecdotal. It's a safe and proven therapy in other viral outbreaks and it's looking very promising so far for COVID, especially in patients with severe to life-threatening symptoms.

I actually communicated with one of the lead study authors and asked him what he thought of the results so far, specifically pointing out what appears to be a potentially significant reduction in mortality and his only comment was that he was "cautious, but optimistic." I understand him not wanting to "hype" something that's not proven yet in controlled clinical studies (the way it should be in clinical research), but if this had been Didier Raoult or some of the other HCQ hawkers, they'd be shouting "cure" right now.
 
There is zero doubt in my mind that the only thing I'd do if I were diagnosed with COVID is to ask for convalescent plasma immediately. I'm astounded more people aren't making a big hoopla out of the results, even if they are observational/anecdotal. It's a safe and proven therapy in other viral outbreaks and it's looking very promising so far for COVID, especially in patients with severe to life-threatening symptoms.

I actually communicated with one of the lead study authors and asked him what he thought of the results so far, specifically pointing out what appears to be a potentially significant reduction in mortality and his only comment was that he was "cautious, but optimistic." I understand him not wanting to "hype" something that's not proven yet in controlled clinical studies (the way it should be in clinical research), but if this had been Didier Raoult or some of the other HCQ hawkers, they'd be shouting "cure" right now.

Problem is, if you're diagnosed tomorrow with covid you ain't getting plasma, unless you eventually wind up in serious condition in the hospital. Maybe a few months or a year from now it will be more widely available. The only thing you might be able to get right now, if you're newly diagnosed, is HCQ - and most doctors probably won't even prescribe that.

So you'll just have to wait and see what happens and hope you're one of the lucky ones.
 
Problem is, if you're diagnosed tomorrow with covid you ain't getting plasma, unless you eventually wind up in serious condition in the hospital. Maybe a few months or a year from now it will be more widely available. The only thing you might be able to get right now, if you're newly diagnosed, is HCQ - and most doctors probably won't even prescribe that.

So you'll just have to wait and see what happens and hope you're one of the lucky ones.

I know, which is why we're not breaking quarantine here until plasma is available for mild cases or even as a prophylactic, which may take a few months, by which time some of the engineered antibodies will likely be getting approval (Aug/Sept?), which should be even better than plasma. Unless something else better comes along, which I highly doubt. We can wait.
 
Problem is, if you're diagnosed tomorrow with covid you ain't getting plasma, unless you eventually wind up in serious condition in the hospital. Maybe a few months or a year from now it will be more widely available. The only thing you might be able to get right now, if you're newly diagnosed, is HCQ - and most doctors probably won't even prescribe that.

So you'll just have to wait and see what happens and hope you're one of the lucky ones.
If I get it I am going to @RUfubar because he will prescribe me HCQ!!!!
 
Last edited:
I just prescribed it yesterday to a prison guard and his his wifejust became overtly symptomatic. I did one of those informed consent speeches with them and they wanted it. much to my surprise the pharmacy gave it to them right away without even calling me. Most of the pharmacists do call regarding the hydroxychloroquine wanting to know the patients' status. And of course both the patients swear they feel better today. I did an NP swab on the wife today. He was diagnosed at the prison And thought he was just having allergic symptoms. She's actually more symptomatic than he is. I really didn't want to give it to them but they were sort of pressing me " for something".

Why didn't you want to give it to them? What is the risk to them? Understand that I'm not for or against HCQ I would like to know what would be the risk of taking it so if I would catch the virus I would know.
 
Back to the topic of this thread and positive treatments or studies or trials that have a chance to help treat COVID until an effective vaccine is available, great news today as Cytodyn and its drug Leronlimab has requested with the FDA to do a triple arm study with Gilead’s Remdesiver , where each will be tested alone as well as in combination with each other. Leronlimab ‘s early enrollees in their mild moderate trial which is not yet fully enrolled has shown great improvement and results will be shared in a week. The mild moderate and the severe trials will hopefully fully enrolled by early June and 14 day and 28 day end points and a sharing of that information will really be a shot in the arm And hopefully EUA and compassionate use will be authorized. You can talk hydroxycholorinquin for pages but it really has no significant effect except maybe at best early on, in combination with zinc, still not confirmed by trials, with serious heart side effects . If I was a betting man , I would bet Leronlimab , and all the ways it curbs the virus with minimal side effects , will be a household name in 60 days. Then we can go back to football, basketball , and all the other sports that we are on this message board to discuss every day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT