Moon of Alabama pushes back against those claiming Covid-19 lockdowns are unjustified

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

DISPATCHES FROM MOON OF ALABAMA, BY "B"
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from Moon of Alabama

Moon of Alabama's editor has taken issue with two articles (and presumably any others of the same ilk) recently published by progressive sources, one by Mike Whitney, the other, Off-Guardian.  We agree with Moon of Alabama's position. 

By Moon of Alabama editor:

On two Coronavirus pieces on other websites:

The piece debunks itself when it quotes a Swedish epidemiologist who says:

“The truth is that we have a policy similar to that of other countries,” says Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, “Like everyone, we are trying to slow down the rate of infection … The differences derive from a different tradition and from a different culture that prevail in Sweden. We prefer voluntary measures, and there is a high level of trust here between the population and the authorities, so we are able to avoid coercive restrictions”

Sweden can do without orders of social distancing because its people will socially distance voluntarily when asked. That works because "there is a high level of trust here between the population and the authorities". That does not hold for the community of Somali people and other immigrants in Sweden more of whom are dying than in any other group.

Now project such a voluntary attempt onto the U.S. public where there is little, if any, trust between the population and the authorities. It simply would not work and one would soon have a runaway epidemic with all its bad consequences. Whitney's conclusion that we should all do like Sweden is thus not justified.

---

The [above] piece was posted on April 17. One of the 'experts' it quotes is Dr. John Oxford, "an English virologist and Professor at Queen Mary, University of London." Here is the quote as posted on Off-Guardian:

Personally, I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. In this case we have had 8000 deaths this last year in the ‘at risk’ groups viz over 65% people with heart disease etc. I do not feel this current Covid will exceed this number. We are suffering from a media epidemic!

– “A VIEW FROM THE HVIVO / OPEN ORPHAN #ORPH LABORATORY”, blog post on Novus Communications website, March 31st 2020

Two remarks:

a. On April 17, when Off-Guardian posted the piece, the United Kingdom already had 14.607 deaths from Covid-19. Those were 6.600 more than the total number Dr. John Oxford predicted. If the real numbers, which are still increasing, are already 80+% higher than the expert's guesstimate should one really use that expert to claim that the 'coronavirus panic' is unjustified?

b. Dr. Oxford made his claim in a "blog post on Novus Communications website". Novus Comes is a public relations agency which provides "financial social media & digital communications for small caps". The company is paid by its clients to talk up certain sectors of the stock market. Should one really use paid PR posts on a PR company's website to judge if some 'panic' about an epidemic is justified?

As for the other 'experts' Off-Guardian quoted. Yes, there are some doctors who do have a different opinion than most of their colleagues. But that does not make them right.

 

An astroturfing campaign was launched in the U.S. to end the lockdowns. It is paid for by rightwing big money:

Somebody did some extremely basic WHOIS searching and found that the person who set up all the "reopen $STATENAME" protest web sites is in fact one guy in Jacksonville. -> reddit thread

and:

[Thread] 1/ Much talk this morning about numerous Facebook groups cropping up with "insert state name" + "against excessive quarantine". Some are suggesting that there is mass astroturfing campaign occurring to pressure state governors to reopen after Donald Trump's tirade
...

---

Covid-19 is a really, really nasty disease:

---

We need to learn from this:

Use as open thread ...

Posted by b on April 19, 2020 at 14:26 UTC Permalink

Addendum

Commentary on Trump's Tweets (excerpts)
Mary McCord, The Washington Post (Reposted on The Hour, Norwalk, Conn.)

 Published Friday, April 17, 2020

President Donald Trump incited insurrection Friday against the duly elected governors of the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. Just a day after issuing guidance for reopening America that clearly deferred decision-making to state officials - as it must under our constitutional order - the president undercut his own guidance by calling for criminal acts against the governors for not opening fast enough.

Trump tweeted, "LIBERATE MINNESOTA!" followed immediately by "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" and then "LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!" This follows Wednesday's demonstration in Michigan, in which armed protesters surrounded the state capitol building in Lansing chanting "Lock her up!" in reference to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and "We will not comply," in reference to her extension of the state's coronavirus-related stay-at-home order. Much smaller and less-armed groups had on Thursday protested on the state capitol grounds in Richmond, Va., and outside the governor's mansion in St. Paul, Minn.

"Liberate" - particularly when it's declared by the chief executive of our republic - isn't some sort of cheeky throwaway. Its definition is "to set at liberty," specifically "to free (something, such as a country) from domination by a foreign power." We historically associate it with the armed defeat of hostile forces during war, such as the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi Germany's control during World War II. Just over a year ago, Trump himself announced that "the United States has liberated all ISIS-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq."

In that context, it's not at all unreasonable to consider Trump's tweets about "liberation" as at least tacit encouragement to citizens to take up arms against duly elected state officials of the party opposite his own, in response to sometimes unpopular but legally issued stay-at-home orders. This is especially so given the president's reference to the Second Amendment being "under siege" in Virginia, where Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam just signed into law a number of gun-safety bills passed during the most recent session of the state general assembly - bills that prompted protests by Second Amendment absolutists at the state capitol in January, leading Northam to declare a state of emergency and temporarily ban firearms from the capitol grounds due to the threat of violence.
<.>

Regardless of whether the tweets are criminal on their own, more importantly, they are irresponsible and dangerous. Private armed militias recently expressed eagerness to support the president's veiled call to arms when he shared a comment on Twitter suggesting that if he were impeached and removed from office, it could lead to civil war:

Just a day before, the Oath Keepers Twitter account tweeted, in an apparent reference to the president, that "All he has to do is call us up. We WILL answer the call." Months before, vigilante groups responded to Trump's frequent rhetoric about an "invasion" on America's southern border by deploying to the border and illegally detaining migrants while heavily armed, dressed in military fatigues and calling themselves the "United Constitutional Patriots."

Trump has a bully pulpit unlike an ordinary citizen. His Twitter account boasts over 77 million followers, but many more see his tweets when they're retweeted by others, posted on other social media and covered by media outlets. He is prolific, having tweeted more than 50,000 times. And he is influential: his three "Liberation" tweets have been retweeted and "liked" hundreds of thousands of times. We are not talking about a typical person when we consider the impact of his statements.

Read the whole article here.

Comments Sampler

Disappointed in Mike Whitney's assessment of Sweden's pandemic policy which may prove to be a disaster down the road. We don't know the true character of this virus and we are only starting to test to discover who has it, who has had it, and who isn't currently infected. We don't know if those recovered have substantial immunity. We don't know how many varieties of this bug are out there. The global community of experts seems dazed and confused. Public policy should err on the side of caution. We do know this, however, that sociopathic national leaders like Jair Bolsonaro and Donald Trump should be removed from their pulpits and quarantined to stop the spread of their toxic verbiage.

Posted by: jadan | Apr 19 2020 15:05 utc | 1

 

 

[premium_newsticker id="213661"]

 

About the author(s)

"b" is Moon of Alabama's founding (and chief) editor.  This site's purpose is to discuss politics, economics, philosophy and blogger Billmon's Whiskey Bar writings. Moon Of Alabama was opened as an independent, open forum for members of the Whiskey Bar community.  Bernhard )"b") started and still runs the site. Once in a while you will also find posts and art from regular commentators. You can reach the current administrator of this site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA@aol.com. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

 
 ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal



The Best Best Advice Video On How Not To Get Coronavirus From a Top Doctor

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

David Price

NOTE:  In this medical news section we try to give our readers information about interesting and promising developments on the fight against this coronavirus (later we will extend this platform to all major medical conditions), but readers must keep in mind that we are often forced to publish materials originating within the US-style capitalist healthcare industry in which profits and not wellness is the main driver for action or inaction. 
By Mark Simone
Apr 5, 2020

 

The full video by Dr. David Price of Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City has gone viral. It's about an hour long. Here's a much easier to watch, edited, short version with just the most important part - the best advice on how not to get the virus:


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.




And before you leave

THE DEEP STATE IS CLOSING IN

The big social media —Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter—are trying to silence us.



Doctors Rate Hydroxychloroquine Most Effective Therapy for Coronavirus Infection

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

A dispatch from PrecisionVaccinations.com

The FDA has issued emergency authorization of Hydroxychloroquine treatment for COVID-19 patients in the USA

 
 

April 4, 2020 –
[dropcap]A[/dropcap] global survey found that anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the most highly-rated treatment against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

This new survey completed by Sermo on March 27, 2020, reported 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37 percent of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options.

Also, the survey of 6,227 doctors found that the most commonly prescribed treatments are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine.

Previously, a survey distributed on March 30, 2020, about 83 percent of independent pharmacists in the USA said ‘they should be able to dispense a limited supply of malaria drugs, as long the patient has tested positive ..... and is under a doctor's care.’

And, on March 23rd, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorization of Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of coronavirus patients. 

Previously available for “off-label” use, the FDA now gives hospitals and doctors emergency permission to use the anti-malarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat coronavirus patients.

Below is a summary of the findings from the Sermo survey:

  • Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the US, 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK and 7% in Japan.
  • Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters).
  • 75% in Spain, 53% in Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the US and 13% in the UK.
  • The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:  (38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for 5 days. (26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for 4 days.
  • Outside the US, Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the US it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients.
  • Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high-risk patients, and 8% for low-risk patients.
As of April 4, 2020, data sources indicate there have been over 1.1 million cases of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus reported by countries around the world.

Clinical data evaluating hydroxychloroquine is limited, and its efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. Nevertheless, given the lack of clearly effective interventions and the in vitro antiviral activity against COVID-19 some clinicians are using it.  There are cardiac side effects among its side effects.

Moreover, there have been about 59,203 fatalities confirmed related to the COVID-19 disease during 2020.

SARS-CoV-2 outbreak news is published by Coronavirus Today.

Precision Vaccinations publishes COVID-19 therapeutic development news.

 

 


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.




And before you leave

THE DEEP STATE IS CLOSING IN

The big social media —Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter—are trying to silence us.



The Science Says #MaskUp – A Look At Two New Virus Studies

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

DISPATCHES FROM MOON OF ALABAMA, BY "B"
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from Moon of Alabama

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here are a few new studies about the novel coronavirus epidemic that are of interest for everyone.

From Science comes a study with new epidemic data that evaluates a smartphone based system that could alarm those who have come near a person which later developed Covid-19 symptoms. Such a system is used in South Korea.

Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing

The new epidemic data in the study is of interest.

It says that the basic reproduction number R0 or R naught for the novel coronavirus is 2.0. Under normal circumstance a new carrier of the virus is likely to infect two other people. This is a higher value than for the seasonal flu but a bit lower than previously thought.

But what the makes the novel coronavirus really different is that it starts to spread before the spreading person has developed symptoms.

The virus starts to replicate in significant numbers (billions per mililiter) on day 2 after the infection. The virus first replicates in the upper throat and the infected person starts to spread it to others simply by breathing, talking or coughing. Only on day 5 the infected person starts to develop first symptoms. The virus migrates into the lower lung and replicates there. The virus load in the upper throat will then start to decline. The immune system intervenes and defeats the virus but also causes additional lung damage which can kill people who have already other preexisting conditions. (Interestingly smokers seem not to develop cytokine storms during a Covid infection and are thereby less prone to end up in the ICU.) On day 10 only few viruses will be found in the upper throat and the person will generally no longer be infectious.

The typical hospitalization point in China was only on day 9 to 12 after the onset of symptoms. At that point a test by swabs is nearly useless as the infected person will normally no longer have significant numbers of the virus in the upper throat. Reports of "defective tests from China" were likely caused by a lack of knowledge about this phenomenon. The diagnose in these later cases should be done by a CT scan which will show the lung damage.

We do know since late January that people can transmit the virus even when they have not yet developed symptoms. An open question was how many of new infections happen during this phase.

The new Science study investigated how many infections were created by each of four infection phases or types:

  • pre-symptomatic - new infections come from an infected person who has not yet developed symptoms but will do so later
  • symptomatic - new infections come from an infected person who has already developed symptoms
  • environmental - new infections comes from some environmental contact with the virus
  • asymptomatic - new infections come from a person that will never develop any symptoms.

The study says that R0 for pre-symptomatic infections is 0.9 or 46% of all new infections. Infections from a symptomatic persons happen with an R0 of 0.8 which is equal to 40% of all new infections. Environmental infections have an R0 of 0.2 or 10% of all new infections. Infections from asymptomatic cases have an R0 of 0.1 or 4% of all new infections.

More new infections are created during the three pre-symptomatic days the virus carrier runs around then during the symptomatic one.

Washing one's hands helps but environmental infections happen only in 10% of all new infections. The pre-symptomatic carriers are, without knowing it, the biggest spreader of the disease. Millions of the many billions of viruses that get created in their throat can attach to tiny water droplets or aerosols while a person breathes, speaks or coughs.

Such spreading can be prevented when everyone wears a mask. A different new study shows that masks are very effective. Published in Nature the study is titled:

Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.

The graphic (here cut off for only corona viruses) shows how masks can keep away your droplets from the people you meet and talk to.

If the carrier of a virus wears a mask the spreading of viruses due to speaking, coughing or even breathing goes basically down to zero.

But a mask does not only protect the carrier of the viruses. While homemade or even professional surgical mask do not protect the wearer from all particles they do protect one much better from them than when one wears no mask at all.

A person rarely gets infected by just one virus particle. They come in millions attached to tiny droplets. We do not know yet how the dose of the novel coronavirus that infects a person affects the intensity of the disease. But we do know from other viruses that the dose matters. People who catch a higher dose of viruses will usually have a more intense disease. A mask can lower the virus load the wearer may receive.

One can improvise a mask from simple household objects. One can sew a mask like a surgeon does in this video. This is my preferred model which is officially recommended by German fire departments. (The pdf is in German but the pictures tell the story). This is the mask I made by following those instructions.


My mask.

It is made of a folded sheet cut from a triangular arm-sling out of an old first-aid kit. A HEPA microfilter (as used in a vacuum cleaners) is in between the folded sheet. A piece cut from a clean bag for vacuum cleaners will do as well. Do not use a sheet or insert that is too tight to breathe through. If one does that the air will come in from the sides of the mask and the total protection effect will be less. It can be arduous to breathe through such a mask. If you have breathing problems leave the insert out. The sheets alone are already good protection. There is a piece of wire from a big paper clip fixed inside the middle of the upper seam to fit the mask tightly around the upper nose. The lower part goes under the chin. I shaved my beard to make it a tighter fit. As I had no sewing equipment I used a stapler to fix the seams and the ribbons.

The HEPA filter catches particles down to 0.3 micrometer. Viruses are some 125 nanometer in diameter so they are smaller and could slip through. But the viruses are attached to some droplet that are bigger. HEPA filter are essentially labyrinths of small fiber and the viruses would have to bounce multiple times to get through. Finally the dose also matters.

To clean the mask of potential viruses I put it into the oven for 30 minutes at 70C (158F).

The science says that masks work. Everyone should use one. #MaskUp!

---
Here some additional links which might be of interest.

So far, to the frustration of both the White House and the intelligence community, the agencies have been unable to glean more accurate numbers through their collection efforts.

That's because the Chinese numbers are as correct as they can get.

---
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the issue:

Posted by b on April 3, 2020 at 18:24 UTC | Permalink

Comments Sampler

R0 < 1.0 means it has a descending infection rate, i.e. it is not epidemic.

The Chinese are, therefore, correct in not including the asymptomatic in the statistics.

Posted by: vk | Apr 3 2020 18:34 utc | 1

No one actually took seriously the idea that masks were ineffective against the virus. The governments poo-pooing masks only said so because they failed to secure enough supply.

Posted by: occupatio | Apr 3 2020 18:38 utc | 2

Bernhard, you are doing great work, and saving lives with your solid information.

No better aggregation of factual info anywhere.

Thank you.

This is why people who come to MOA should support MOA. It's a one-man effort of exemplary importance. Donate to keep 'b' going.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Apr 3 2020 18:46 utc | 3

VK - 1
It means that pre-symptomatic are responsible for 0.9 of the 2.0 R0 - so basically 45% of the spread.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Apr 3 2020 18:46 utc | 4

About droplets, it seems wrong to believe than one droplet is enough to make you sick, isn't it? (that is what makes people panicking and accept the lockdown because they are afraid touching the elevator buttons etc).
In February when the first cases were declared in Bethleem (South Korean tourists if I remember correctly) I think the contact story was made with the people who had spent at least 15 mn with the group.

Posted by: Mina | Apr 3 2020 18:49 utc | 5

After saying masks are useless, the above the fold headline in my newspaper this morning was "Trump: Masks Are Good." Another important revelation is the fact that other mammals can get the disease, cats being the most important, IMO. The wife expects one of us 4 household members--effectively two pairs--to get the disease, but then she's a plan for the worst type. I'm much more optimistic, although I've advocated masking-up since January.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 3 2020 18:49 utc | 6

[premium_newsticker id="213661"]

 

About the author(s)

"b" is Moon of Alabama's founding (and chief) editor.  This site's purpose is to discuss politics, economics, philosophy and blogger Billmon's Whiskey Bar writings. Moon Of Alabama was opened as an independent, open forum for members of the Whiskey Bar community.  Bernhard )"b") started and still runs the site. Once in a while you will also find posts and art from regular commentators. You can reach the current administrator of this site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA@aol.com. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

 
 ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal



In search of a coronavirus killer: Can existing drugs really turn the tide in the Covid-19 pandemic?

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

A DISPATCH BY RT.COM

Dateline—1 Apr, 2020 14:07 / Updated 2 days ago
Get short URL
 

The search for an effective antiviral drug has taken an urgent pace as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to spread around the globe. RT ©  Reuters /Yves Herman

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ith confirmed cases approaching one million and no vaccine yet available, the Covid-19 virus has sparked worldwide panic — yet with the fear has come hope that existing drugs might hold a cure. Is it all just wishful thinking?

Four months after it originated in China’s Hubei province, the novel coronavirus has spread to at least 180 countries and claimed more than 38,000 lives. With no proven treatment in sight, drastic measures have been taken by governments to contain its spread — but the world can’t rely on ‘social distancing’ and ‘self-isolation’ forever.

Amid the anxiety, there has been no shortage of drugs touted by the media and medical professionals as potential ‘game changer’ antidotes to the viral infection. RT took a look at some of the most widely-proffered options.

ALSO ON RT.COMScientists must look dispassionately at Covid-19 so they can see what it is, not what they fear: Rushed science can be bad science

Anti-malarial drugs (Trump’s choice)

Drugs usually used to treat malaria have been suggested as a potential “game changer” against the coronavirus infection by everyone from US President Donald Trump and the US Department of Health to Russian medical specialists. 

The high-profile promotions and panic-buying of the drugs by governments has already led to shortages for those who use them to treat other conditions, including lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. The drugs, which suppress the immune system, are seen as potentially helpful against Covid-19 because the virus over-stimulates immune response which can cause organ failure. Yet, drugs like hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are unlikely to save the world from this rapidly-spreading viral infection since they appear to be ineffective against the virus itself.

One of the first studies promoting anti-malarial drugs as an effective treatment against coronavirus was led by French physician and microbiologist, Didier Raoult — but it has since been repeatedly criticized by other experts for “methodological flaws” and skewed data.

While Raoult cited instances of the drugs being effective against Covid-19 in China, they were apparently not particularly useful when used to treat patients in Italian hospitals, according to Dr. Giorgio Palu, one of the leading European experts in virology and former president of the European Society of Virology. “We just assume they can affect some viruses like SARS, yet they were not proved clinically,” he told RT.

Professor Sergey Netesov, who heads the Bio Nanotechnologies Laboratory at Russia’s Novosibirsk State University, also questioned the idea of using these medicines against coronavirus. “These drugs are not antiviral ones. Neither are they antibiotics,” he explained, adding that the one-celled organism that causes malaria is actually a parasite, so these drugs are anti-parasite medicines and should not normally be effective against viruses.

HIV drugs — a long shot

A combination of two drugs, lopinavir and ritonavir, that are used to treat HIV and sold under the brand name Kaletra, has also been widely considered as a viable option in the fight against coronavirus. It was listed as a potential treatment by reputable Dutch publishing and analytics company Elsevier, though its effectiveness was still described as “unclear.”

The theory was that this combination of drugs prevented the coronavirus from infecting new cells in a patient’s body by affecting a certain enzyme within the virus itself, in the same way it does with HIV. Yet, what appeared to be sound in theory turned out to be ineffective in practice.

A Chinese study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that “no benefit was observed with lopinavir–ritonavir treatment beyond standard care.” Its results were also supported by Palu, who said that Italian medics are abandoning this option of treatment for coronavirus patients. Netesov, meanwhile, said that the lopinavir–ritonavir option was never likely to be a success, since HIV is caused by retroviruses which are quite different to coronaviruses.

Professor George Lomonossoff, a microbiologist at the British John Innes Center, shared that view. “The [enzymes] are not identical between the two viruses so the efficacy is uncertain,” he told RT.

Ebola virus drugs?

A drug called remdesivir, originally developed to treat the Ebola virus, has been another widely discussed treatment option. Designated an ‘orphan drug’ (one which treats extremely rare conditions and is therefore commercially underdeveloped) by the FDA, remsedivir emerged as one of the “most promising” treatments in numerous Western media reports. In the US, the Pentagon even rushed to secure doses of the experimental drug for US troops who have contracted the virus.

The idea is that remdesivir gets into the viral RNA (ribonucleic acid) and halts viral replication, making it an ideal treatment — but that’s just the theory. Its practical efficiency is much less certain, experts say. “We still do not have clear positive results in coronavirus treatment,” Netesov said while Lomonosoff said it “needs to be tested” first. 

ALSO ON RT.COMCovid-19 vaccine: Difficult, uncertain and far-off, microbiologist says

Rheumatoid arthritis

It seems counterintuitive at first to suggest drugs that suppress the immune response can help fight an infection, but like the immune-suppressing anti-malarial drugs discussed above, a rheumatoid arthritis drug called tocilizumab has found its way onto the list of potential Covid-19 game changers.

This drug was first approved for use against coronavirus by China. Then Italian doctors reported that it helps patients suffering from severe pneumonia caused by the virus. Tocilizumab prevents the severe lung inflammation that has been seen in coronavirus sufferers and Palu believes it could be particularly effective in the “pre-severe” phase of the illness.

Lomonosoff explained that the drug doesn’t exactly inhibit the virus itself, but relieves the inflammation caused by the infection. In other words, Tocilizumab can’t help halt the global pandemic, but it could help at least a portion of the patients infected with Covid-19.

Interferon-based drugs

Another option involves exactly the opposite approach to the one envisioned with hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab. This method involves stimulating immune response with interferon-based drugs, which are used for treating a variety of diseases from multiple sclerosis to cancer. 

With the coronavirus, the hope was that interferon-based drugs could block protein synthesis in human cells and stop the virus from replication – just as happens normally as part of an initial immune response. Yet, as Netesov warns, such an approach could bring more harm than good. 

Interferons “inhibit protein synthesis regardless of whether it involves proteins of a virus or a host,” he explained, adding that such drugs could not be used for a long time as they cause severe adverse effects. Such effects could involve disruption of blood cell replication or even suicidal ideation.

Besides, the drugs appear to be only effective in the first five days after a person becomes infected, since a virus usually develops a natural resistance to interferons beyond that point, the Russian specialist said. Since the first symptoms of Covid-19 tend to appear no sooner than 12 days after one contracts the virus, these drugs are unlikely to be particularly useful.


 

Can repurposing existing drugs work?

Medical experts have been “working on the hypothesis that combinations of drugs, working in ways that are different from their clinically prescribed roles” may be effective against Covid-19 or help to manage its symptoms, according to Ken Mills, professor of experimental haematology at Queen’s University Belfast, which was recently awarded a grant to fund Covid-19 treatment research.

The hope is that experts might identify treatments that can either prevent the virus infection or “reduce or alleviate” its symptoms, meaning fewer patients will become high-risk and need intensive treatment, Mills told RT.

Mills and his colleagues have been focusing on anti-viral and anti-inflammatory combinations but are keeping an “open mind” about which treatments could prove most useful when “repurposed” against the novel coronavirus.

Still, while multiple potential treatment options have been rapidly circulating in the media, none of them yet appears to be the cure that the world is searching for. It seems that for now, the preventive measures of social distancing and self-quarantine are the most reliable methods to limit the spread — and the quickest-possible development of a vaccine specifically to treat Covid-19 remains the holy grail.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.




And before you leave

THE DEEP STATE IS CLOSING IN

The big social media —Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter—are trying to silence us.