Live data from Hacker News

Ebola Is Now Curable

wired.com

61–70 of 172 posts

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#61
This is great news. The headline here "Ebola is Now Curable" seems premature when the observed mortality rate is @30%.

What I am specifically interested in is whether the rate of new infections can be curtailed to below the self-sustaining threshold.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#62
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's quite terrifying when you remember that stopping a clinical trial early is a great way to create statistical fraud. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/08/08/st... cites an example of a drug whose clinical trial was stopped early due to obviously effective success... only to discover later on that the "obviously effective" was a statistically spurious event, and the drug did not confer…

It seems that if this is the case for this new drug it would be fairly noticable that the death rate jumps back up to 50%

That works both ways too, the mortality rate went from 50-75% to 6% if they sought treatment immediately. Which is a significant indicator of success.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#63
post #2

This is awesome that we've seen another horrendous disease go from incurable to curable in my lifetime. While ebola hasn't touched my community like AIDS/HIV has, reading this cracked my RBF and I smiled.

It is great news, and also evidence of how much better it is to be aware of diseases that happen in remote, poor parts of the world. If the rich world had ignored Ebola because it was happening to poor people (mostly, so far), then it could have become an AIDS/HIV sized epidemic (including in the rich world) before these treatments were developed. Plus the good karma of not just sitting there while your neighbor's house burns to the ground, of course.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#64
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpacking the name totally is even more brutal! "necro" -- "death" "lysis" -- "busting open" "epidermal" -- "skin" "syndrome" -- "no known cause" However, it's a little unclear why TEN is a point of comparison to Ebola, as one is a transmissible disease and one is something that happens to unlucky people typically in response to common small-molecule drugs. I guess TEN sounds like a probable side effect of antiviral…

Is syndrome = "no known cause" a common definition?

I imagine parent is being a bit tongue in cheek. A syndrome is any group of symptoms that seem to occur together. Often something is called a syndrome before its cause is determined. However, even after a cause is found or if it was known, the name often persists. E.g. AIDS was named before it was traced back to HIV. It persists as the name for the late stages of an HIV infection.

So while it is often the case that when a syndrome is initially named its cause is unknown, the two are really referring to different levels of abstraction of a disease. The syndrome is its effects, irrespective of whether we know its cause.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#65
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpacking the name totally is even more brutal! "necro" -- "death" "lysis" -- "busting open" "epidermal" -- "skin" "syndrome" -- "no known cause" However, it's a little unclear why TEN is a point of comparison to Ebola, as one is a transmissible disease and one is something that happens to unlucky people typically in response to common small-molecule drugs. I guess TEN sounds like a probable side effect of antiviral…

Is syndrome = "no known cause" a common definition?

Nope.

Edit: one usage is for a set of commonly concurrent symptoms, possibly with no known cause. Another common usage is a set of concurrent symptoms with multiple known causes (e.g. toxic shock syndrome).

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#66

There is no news I enjoy reading more than that a clinical trial had to be ended early because the treatment was so effective that it would be unethical to continue with alternative treatments (or a placebo).

Actually, it's quite terrifying when you remember that stopping a clinical trial early is a great way to create statistical fraud. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/08/08/st... cites an example of a drug whose clinical trial was stopped early due to obviously effective success... only to discover later on that the "obviously effective" was a statistically spurious event, and the drug did not confer…

no, when certain conditions lead to certain outcomes like cancer, infections and so on, you cannot really go wrong when results come in early and are so positive they are massively significantly different vs the usual course. effect size.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#69

There is no news I enjoy reading more than that a clinical trial had to be ended early because the treatment was so effective that it would be unethical to continue with alternative treatments (or a placebo).

Actually, it's quite terrifying when you remember that stopping a clinical trial early is a great way to create statistical fraud. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/08/08/st... cites an example of a drug whose clinical trial was stopped early due to obviously effective success... only to discover later on that the "obviously effective" was a statistically spurious event, and the drug did not confer…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN