Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells • Hacker News Board

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#181

Post by loonster » Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 2:34 PM UTC

tragictrash wrote: post #169

loonster wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine hesitancy started out with the entire media, Biden and Fauci saying an effective vaccine will be years away. Meanwhile Trump is out hawking the warpspeed vaccine like it will save the world. A week after the election and the narrative flips. I don't buy the first model year of a car, very rarely take an on patent drug, and I won't inject myself with a medical device before the long term studies have been…

What are these long term studies you speak of?

I'm not aware of any currently, but that doesn't mean someone isn't doing one. At the very least, there is likely several cohort studies going on right now that will capture some useful data.

There is no substitute for time. Very few people have had the vaccine for more that 1 year. None have had it more than 5.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#182

Post by bananabiscuit » Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

pacerwpg wrote: post #148

bananabiscuit wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like every other 「fact-check」 I’ve seen recently, this just attacks the most weak and absurd version of the fact. The reason people are saying it’s repackaged ivermectin is not because it’s literally the same chemical in new packaging, but because the mechanism of action for Pfizer’s new antiviral (3CL protease inhibitor) is something that Ivermectin also does.

This is from the fact check and it sounds to me like they're treating the claims fairly and not using a ridiculous version. 'Several posts circulating online wrongly suggest that the pills are the same because ivermectin also acts like a protease inhibitor and keeps the virus from replicating. Ivermectin continues to be studied in relation to COVID-19, however, it has yet to be proven that it can treat COVID-19. Imag…

They are dancing around the fact that ivermectin is indeed a 3CL protease inhibitor, despite that the molecule is very different from the new anti-virals being developed, and despite that 3CL protease inhibition was not primarily what made ivermectin an anti parasitic.

That’s how you know these fact checks are bullshit propaganda. They obviously did their research, but they will discuss everything short of the thing that will actually give credence to the claim being fact checked.

It doesn’t matter that the primary mechanism of action of ivermectin is different from the thing that makes it anti-viral. It doesn’t matter that the molecule looks very different from the new antivirals. These are not important and are just distractions from one simple fact:

the new antivirals work by inhibiting 3CL protease, ivermectin inhibits 3CL protease too.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#183

Post by ashtonkem » Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

angelzen wrote: post #119

raphlinus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call bullshit. Antibodies wane but the memory cell response is robust and holds up over what looks to be a pretty long period (studied intensively for 6 months but with no sign of decline). Here's a new paper that shows that in detail (paper itself is dense but Twitter thread is fairly accessible): https://twitter.com/rishirajgoel/status/1448711946010710023 By basically all measures, these vaccines work better than…

Great link, summarizing recent research showing strong post-vaccination long-term B cell response. Then Twitter surfaces a recent breakthrough infection study among 620k US veterans in the "More Tweets" section: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1448815262522773520 After six months from initial vaccination (Mar-Aug) the J&J vaccine appears to have zero (!) VE against infection. Pfizer is holding at a modest 53% ag…

> People are free to get or not get a flu vaccine. Not getting a covid vaccine means loss of livelihood, loss of basic liberties and social ostracism.

Gee, I wonder if something happened recently that made stopping Covid more pressing than making everyone get a flu shot? Sure seems like there’s some reason, maybe a few hundred thousand reasons, why as a society we’re taking Covid and vaccination against it more seriously than the flu.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#184

Post by rsfern » Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #178

tragictrash wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you can't be trusted to not infect the people around you, yeah get the hell out. Its literally the only pragmatic way to deal with it.

Bad faith argument here. The current vaccines are not like the MMR vaccine, for example. Vaccinated people can still contract and spread coronaviruses. So, a vaccine subscription where everyone needs shots every 6-12 months is not the _only_ pragmatic way to deal with it; it's just the option that's being shoved down all Americans' throats right now, ostensibly for the benefit of major pharma companies and other more…

> push not the best, but the most profitable solutions

Don’t you think that cocktails of novel antiviral drugs are a higher profit margin solution then the vaccines that are already available? A remdesivir course costs almost two orders of magnitude more than an mRNA vaccine (in the US). Can’t really imagine these novel antiviral drugs will be much more affordable. To be clear, I do think both are important tools that we should use.

Is there some other pragmatic solution you have in mind?

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#185

Post by tragictrash » Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 11:30 PM UTC

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #178

tragictrash wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you can't be trusted to not infect the people around you, yeah get the hell out. Its literally the only pragmatic way to deal with it.

Bad faith argument here. The current vaccines are not like the MMR vaccine, for example. Vaccinated people can still contract and spread coronaviruses. So, a vaccine subscription where everyone needs shots every 6-12 months is not the _only_ pragmatic way to deal with it; it's just the option that's being shoved down all Americans' throats right now, ostensibly for the benefit of major pharma companies and other more…

It is literally the most effective way to reopen our country. Full stop. Nothing comes close. We don't have any other options currently. I wish we did, but with the tools we have, Its a purely pragmatic decision to encourage everyone to get vaccinated.

And saying it isn't a death sentence is ignorant, we've lost over 700k Americans alone to it, no idea how many people globally. I dare you to go to someone who's lost a loved one and say that its not a death sentence, because to so many it is.

And bad faith argument? There's no astroturfing. Its a good idea and way more than 50% of the US population supports it. You been drinking the kool aide.

You have a huge important point about all this that I almost missed reading your response, because its mired in 'I'm not an anti vaxer' mixed with hints of conspiracy theories. Big pharma is getting fat off this. Its a problem. It needs to be fixed for the sake of the american people.

We need intelligent people like you to fight for that.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#186

Post by tragictrash » Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

loonster wrote: post #181

tragictrash wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these long term studies you speak of?

I'm not aware of any currently, but that doesn't mean someone isn't doing one. At the very least, there is likely several cohort studies going on right now that will capture some useful data. There is no substitute for time. Very few people have had the vaccine for more that 1 year. None have had it more than 5.

Interesting, so if you were to define quantifiable criteria for when/what would make you feel safe, what would that be?

Not trolling here, I'm genuinely interested and thank you for sharing.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#187

Post by walterbell » Sun, Oct 17, 2021, 12:39 AM UTC

phonypc wrote: post #180

walterbell wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at the CDC website, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac... > Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. For many people, this description could apply to daily activity, e.g. riding on public transit. So the CDC is recommended regular testing of vaccinated people. Sinc…

None of this indicates the vaccines increase asymptomatic transmission. Yes, breakthrough cases can still transmit. Keyword can .

70% pre-symptomatic transmission in healthcare workers with PPE is a bit more than can.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#188

Post by tinus_hn » Sun, Oct 17, 2021, 7:17 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #127

LurkingPenguin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. Does every discussion of about post-exposure prophylaxis have to have comments about vaccination? > And it works great without the constant need for testing. A primary reason for testing has been to help stop the spread of the virus (test positive = isolate), not necessarily to let people with mild symptoms…

> Research indicates that individuals with breakthrough infections can have viral loads that are as high as unvaccinated individuals, and some percentage report courses of illness that are virtually identical to a typical course of illness in unvaccinated individuals But that's totally expected (depending of course on how you define "some"). If the vaccine had 100% efficacy, it would be shocking. The fact that it doe…

This isn’t about ‘95% was unaffected and the vaccine didn’t work for the other 5%’.

It’s about ‘the vaccine does not protect against getting infected and being infectious in over 50% of cases’.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#189

Post by tinus_hn » Sun, Oct 17, 2021, 7:37 AM UTC

elevenoh wrote: post #135

Inconvenient to vaccine mandates & pharma lobbyists, so will we see it prescribed?

It is patented so who knows! Now instead of having to compete on producing cheap generic medicine, pharma can ask the proper question: how much are you willing to pay to be saved!

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#190

Post by loonster » Sun, Oct 17, 2021, 8:39 PM UTC

tragictrash wrote: post #186

loonster wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any currently, but that doesn't mean someone isn't doing one. At the very least, there is likely several cohort studies going on right now that will capture some useful data. There is no substitute for time. Very few people have had the vaccine for more that 1 year. None have had it more than 5.

Interesting, so if you were to define quantifiable criteria for when/what would make you feel safe, what would that be? Not trolling here, I'm genuinely interested and thank you for sharing.

I would need to know - Short-term risks of taking vaccine - Long-term risks of taking vaccine - Short-term benefits of taking vaccine - Long-term benefits of taking vaccine - Risks and benefits of alternatives

The vaccine doesn't even need to be "safe" for it to be worthwhile. A person with a short enough expected lifespan (elderly or comorbid) may derive a great benefit from a drug with real long-term risks.

For long term risks, nothing can substitute for time. I'm relatively young. I have an expected lifespan of 40+ more years. Ideally, I would want 40+ years worth of long term data. Realistically, I will settle for 5 years of good data. That should give good enough information to make an informed decision.

The biggest hurdle to overcome is censorship. A large portion of the media and big tech is censoring "misinformation". Its not just social media like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc. nor main stream media like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. Companies like Google are removing advertisement from pages if it says something they disagree with. With this heavy handed skew, can you really trust the information that comes out?