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

NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#31

Post by gnulinux »

jws wrote: post #14
allovernow wrote: post #4

I don't understand why they aren't trialing chloroquine. Isn't it more readily available and cheaper? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04261517?cond=covid-1... That is studying hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic metabolite of chloroquine. If you navigate up a bit on that web site and enter COVID-19 for your search you will find about 50 studies, roughly a dozen or so are checking drugs.

But how are they having 50 studies if there are barely 50 confirmed cases in the US? Are they testing these drugs on other viral pneumonia patients? Or is this a "once we have patients we will initiate testing" sort of thing?

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#32

Post by gdubs »

refurb wrote: post #20
frandroid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, we can determine that the cost of keeping people healthy is a social good and invest in that. I don't think we need market indicators to show that we don't want people to die. And we know that that market signal distorts the needs addressed so that chronic alleviation things get more attention than one-time cures...

If the free market doesn’t determine what diseases are targeted, then it’s just some govt official doing it. Which, undoubtedly, will succumb to political games. There aren’t enough resources out there to tackle every disease.

I mean, sure, but if you turn on the TV the ads are for erectile disfunction drugs — that’s where the money is. When it comes to funding a vaccine that needs to go out to a few billion people who can’t afford it, I’d put my lot in with the government.

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#33

Post by gdubs »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8
frandroid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, we can determine that the cost of keeping people healthy is a social good and invest in that. I don't think we need market indicators to show that we don't want people to die. And we know that that market signal distorts the needs addressed so that chronic alleviation things get more attention than one-time cures...

> Or you know, we can determine that the cost of keeping people healthy is a social good and invest in that. Social goods that we ostensibly invest in, often are crappy career paths in terms of pay. If you don't believe me, talk with a teacher. We know that few things contribute to the social good as much as a good education, but tell me honestly. If you knew a poor, smart, hard working kid, what career path would yo…

I mean, so you pay teachers more. Government jobs weren’t always vilified, nor heavily underfunded. The shift happened with Milton Friedman in the 60s and 70s.

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#34

Post by jimrandomh »

gnulinux wrote: post #31
jws wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04261517?cond=covid-1... That is studying hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic metabolite of chloroquine. If you navigate up a bit on that web site and enter COVID-19 for your search you will find about 50 studies, roughly a dozen or so are checking drugs.

But how are they having 50 studies if there are barely 50 confirmed cases in the US? Are they testing these drugs on other viral pneumonia patients? Or is this a "once we have patients we will initiate testing" sort of thing?

Most of the trials are happening in China, not the US.

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#35

Post by aantix »

gdubs wrote: post #30
aantix wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are smart people that want to earn more than a "social good" paycheck, whatever amount you peg that at. That's the issue with your "social good" approach, is that by capping the upside, you're capping the control one can exercise over their own livelihoods. The smart scientist wanted to send their kid to a more expensive Montessori preschool instead of a neighborhood preschool? Too bad. You are capped at the so…

No one’s talking about pegging the salaries of the researchers who are in a completely different class than executive management. It’s a Straw Man argument.

The disdain for execs is apparent.

Most engineers can’t scale companies. Just take a look at the wasteland of personal projects demo’ed on HN. Great technical execution, but they don’t get off the ground as a profit generating company.

And a company scaled to to billions of dollars is even more of an outlier. It’s absolutely a skill.

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#36

Post by gnulinux »

jimrandomh wrote: post #34
gnulinux wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how are they having 50 studies if there are barely 50 confirmed cases in the US? Are they testing these drugs on other viral pneumonia patients? Or is this a "once we have patients we will initiate testing" sort of thing?

Most of the trials are happening in China, not the US.

So if they do succeed they won't have any implications in the US since FDA doesn't approve of them and insurances will refuse pay, right?

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#37

Post by pille »

refurb wrote: post #20
frandroid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, we can determine that the cost of keeping people healthy is a social good and invest in that. I don't think we need market indicators to show that we don't want people to die. And we know that that market signal distorts the needs addressed so that chronic alleviation things get more attention than one-time cures...

If the free market doesn’t determine what diseases are targeted, then it’s just some govt official doing it. Which, undoubtedly, will succumb to political games. There aren’t enough resources out there to tackle every disease.

The free market itself is the result of some govt officials' design, and plenty of polical games.

"Free market" isn't really the right term for this method of price discovery when life and limb is on the line. "Highway robbery" might be more appropriate.

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#38

Post by gdubs »

aantix wrote: post #35
gdubs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one’s talking about pegging the salaries of the researchers who are in a completely different class than executive management. It’s a Straw Man argument.

The disdain for execs is apparent. Most engineers can’t scale companies. Just take a look at the wasteland of personal projects demo’ed on HN. Great technical execution, but they don’t get off the ground as a profit generating company. And a company scaled to to billions of dollars is even more of an outlier. It’s absolutely a skill.

Notice that I didn’t say anywhere that executives shouldn’t be paid more than workers. It’s a question of how much more. Right now executives make over 200 times more than an average worker, at a rate that’s increased more rapidly than workers wages. You can find a lot of economists who think this actually isn’t that great for the economy.

And yes, you can have a conversation of what value an exec brings vs the value generated by scientists inventing the products their selling. But the original point was that no one is coming after workers salaries — they’re not the ones making $15m a year.

Re: NIH trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 begins in hospitalized adults in Nebraska

#39

Post by refurb »

dekhn wrote: post #27
refurb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? If the people who do the basic research patent their work, sure they get financially rewarded for it. Go talk to the chemist at Northwestern who discovered Lyrica. Or the CF Foundation who made billions from Kalydeco.

It really depends on a lot of factors. Not every scientist who has their name on a patent that led to a billion dollar drug saw much money from it. the university sees much of the upside.

That’s true, it all depends on the agreement with the university.
Post reply on HN