Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ebola Is Now Curable

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 172 posts

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#71

Post by leereeves »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #5

It's great news, but they're observing a 30% mortality rate for the "cure". Absent medical intervention there is still a nontrivial survival rate (mortality rate of 75-90%). With supporting medical treatment before this new treatment - fluid support, etc - I think it's up to 50%? It sounds like the monoclonal antibody treatment has improved odds of survival from 1:10-1:2 to 2:3. edit: The 6% figure is population rest…

Of the 11 people who've been treated for Ebola in the US, only 2 have died.

That's a small sample, but only an 18% mortality rate with the best available treatment, before this cure.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#72

Post by Iv »

A fact that many people miss about Ebola is that while its survival rate is very low when untreated, it becomes relatively high (I think in the 80%) with simple things like IV hydration. Basically you are going to lose a LOT of water through that infection. Feeding you water (and minerals) directly in the veins gives a surprisingly high survival rate.

What makes Ebola so dangerous is the ease at which infection spreads within the medical staff and how quick it can occupy all your beds and "simple" IV devices.

Depending on how it is made, a cure may not change much. If it relies on medical attention, then it probably won't change the high death rate of people outside medical care, which is what allows an epidemic to start.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#73

Post by WhitneyLand »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #53
jcranmer wrote: post #43

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's only a "great way to create statistical fraud" if you assume that the statisticians, and the FDA, are either stupid or corrupt. And contrary to popular belief, they tend to be competent enough to at least cope with the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them.[0] Stopping a trial early and it's statistical implications should, by the way, be somewhat familiar with web developers: it's commonly do…

>>the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them

Is there much value in an ad-hominem reply?

Or in generalizing it to an entire community? The irony seems hard to avoid when such a generalization is made without mentioning any statistical foundation, while pontificating about statistics.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#74

Post by Simon_says »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #53
jcranmer wrote: post #43

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's only a "great way to create statistical fraud" if you assume that the statisticians, and the FDA, are either stupid or corrupt. And contrary to popular belief, they tend to be competent enough to at least cope with the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them.[0] Stopping a trial early and it's statistical implications should, by the way, be somewhat familiar with web developers: it's commonly do…

The word is harebrained unless you think hair has a brain.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#75

Post by yummybear »

jcranmer wrote: post #43
dankohn1 wrote: post #29

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…

Doesn't giving the drug to everyone in the trial at least add some statistical information (i.e. what is the likelyhood on it working for everyone vs. it being a spurious event)?

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#76

Post by justinclift »

singingboyo wrote: post #45
jcranmer wrote: post #43

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…

While I agree in general, the article indicates this was stopped after 681 of a planned 725 patients, which seems okay. Additionally, my understanding from a quick read is that the SPMS trials were aiming to delay progression in disability, rather than eliminate the effects altogether. That seems trickier to measure, and also more subject to just... not spending enough time looking at it. Ebola, on the other hand, ha…

> Ebola, on the other hand, has a binary outcome (dead vs cured) with a timeline of a couple weeks, IIRC.

Doesn't it leave (cured) people potentially permanently damaged as well? eg whatever organs were damaged, are still damaged

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#77

Post by eitland »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #73
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a "great way to create statistical fraud" if you assume that the statisticians, and the FDA, are either stupid or corrupt. And contrary to popular belief, they tend to be competent enough to at least cope with the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them.[0] Stopping a trial early and it's statistical implications should, by the way, be somewhat familiar with web developers: it's commonly do…

>> the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them Is there much value in an ad-hominem reply? Or in generalizing it to an entire community? The irony seems hard to avoid when such a generalization is made without mentioning any statistical foundation, while pontificating about statistics.

> Is there much value in an ad-hominem reply?

> Or in generalizing it to an entire community?

I don't like this style either but sometimes I think we deserve it for being a smug echo chamber.

Basically, much the same thing could have been said in a different way and I would have upvoted it.

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#78

Post by sjcsjc »

Simon_says wrote: post #74
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a "great way to create statistical fraud" if you assume that the statisticians, and the FDA, are either stupid or corrupt. And contrary to popular belief, they tend to be competent enough to at least cope with the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them.[0] Stopping a trial early and it's statistical implications should, by the way, be somewhat familiar with web developers: it's commonly do…

The word is harebrained unless you think hair has a brain.

Thanks - I didn't know this. http://www.word-detective.com/2012/08/harebrained/

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#79

Post by benj111 »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #73
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a "great way to create statistical fraud" if you assume that the statisticians, and the FDA, are either stupid or corrupt. And contrary to popular belief, they tend to be competent enough to at least cope with the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them.[0] Stopping a trial early and it's statistical implications should, by the way, be somewhat familiar with web developers: it's commonly do…

>> the sort of hair-brained schemes HN believes would fool them Is there much value in an ad-hominem reply? Or in generalizing it to an entire community? The irony seems hard to avoid when such a generalization is made without mentioning any statistical foundation, while pontificating about statistics.

Have you read any thread that involves statistics? I havent really detected that low an opinion for the FDA in particular but I recognised the broad outline painted.

I could add quite a few more generalisations myself while I'm at it, HN isn't solely populated by hyper intelligent, well reasoned, logical doctors, who form their ideas completely independently of everyone else. There's going to be group think, there's going to be like minded individuals attracted to one another, that's human nature, deal with it.

I don't even think it's an ad-hominem. HNers are generally argumentative gits (generalisation), who like finding an exception/hack/new way of looking at something (generalisation). I have no problem with some of those schemes being described as 'hairbrained' (sic although actually... [1]), but that's why I come here, because if people didn't think that way they wouldn't be Hackers.

[1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/harebrained

Re: Ebola Is Now Curable

#80

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #28
DoreenMichele wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as a point of comparison: Toxic epidermal necrolysis, a severe form of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, has about a 30% mortality rate. I understand it to be a first world problem typically caused by taking certain strong medications. It's a severe and often deadly allergic reaction. (I'm not going to provide links because both Wikipedia entries have disturbing photos. I've verified that I'm spelling both correctly so…

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…

Joking aside that's not what syndrome means. Things that have no known cause as of today are usually called idiopathic.
Post reply on HN