Virus Colds and Flu

Many types...

How it's done...

Sorry that's too many facts, I'll just do what My President ™ says / Merica.

Searching for the truth, that is facts that confirm my gut feeling, is hard.
Easier to just go with what facebook and the guys at the bar tell me.

Trump has stumbled a couple times this year. Pointing it out is acceptable but this mocking/jeering that's going on right now will make his supporters double down rather than think.

They're going hard on Bacefook right now. I'm not doing well with conversation.

A company called Gilead has come up with a drug called remdesivir which has shown some effect on covid-19 in trials.
The price for 1st world governments, including the U.S. Indian Health Services and the VA, is $2,340 for a 5-day course.
U.S. insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid, will pay $3,120. 3rd world a lot less through licensed generics.
That’s not too bad for a cure.

But it’s not a cure.
A 10 day treatment reduced the median recovery from 15 to 11 days.
Mortality with remdesivir was 7.1%, compared to 11.9% with a placebo.
The article says that’s not statistically significant?? :unsure:

In the less sick patient trial, remdesivir patients improved more than placebo if given for 5 days, but not when given for 10. What? :eyebrow:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/29/gilead-announces-remdesivir-price-covid-19/

The article says that’s not statistically significant?? :unsure:

Whether it's statistically significant will depend on how many people were in the trial--if two people get the drug and two don't, and both placebo folks die but one of the drug folks lives, that's a 50% improvement in outcomes, which sounds amazing but could just be chance. If I give it to 100,000 and still half the drug folks live and all the placebo folks die, then that's much more statistically significant.

Clodfobble;1054559 wrote:

Whether it's statistically significant will depend on how many people were in the trial ...

Initial indication are not significant for many. But can be more significant for those on the verge of death. It appears to result in about 10% less deaths.

Obviously more data is essential to be more accurate. But we are not discussing fraudulent lies from a President. These are numbers from others who are patriotic. Who make conclusions from facts and numbers.

Clodfobble;1054559 wrote:

Whether it's statistically significant will depend on how many people were in the trial--if two people get the drug and two don't, and both placebo folks die but one of the drug folks lives, that's a 50% improvement in outcomes, which sounds amazing but could just be chance. If I give it to 100,000 and still half the drug folks live and all the placebo folks die, then that's much more statistically significant.

I can see where 1100 people would not constitute a statistically significant trial result to researcher/tester types. However paying $3120 for a drug that works better than a placebo for 5 days but not for 10, seems a little steep. Especially since the 14 to 11 day improvement was for a 10 day trial. To my mind apples, oranges and bananas too.

This is undesirable...

[ATTACH]71032[/ATTACH]


If you do the then you may be introduced to the Pear of Anguish..


[ATTACH]71033[/ATTACH]

that looks medieval