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

‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

ucsf.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#41

Post by fabian2k »

derefr wrote: post #32
vikramkr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Camelid nanobodies aren't that new, but this is still overselling stuff. I don't like reporting on preprint in general, and this article really doesn't explain the complexities of actually getting some early stage technology like this approved and developed. That's where you end up with the constant barrage of "oh look, another biomedical technology we'll never hear about again" comments, and the amount that this art…

If you take it as science reporting, mainly intended to be of interest to scientists or to people who follow the progress of science , then it's sensible. It's similar to the materials-science reporting they do for battery technologies. These releases coming from University PR departments (this one's from UCSF) aren't really supposed to make it into newspapers for wide consumption. Their target audience is: 1. the pe…

I've never seen any scientists reading press releases instead of papers, they are certainly not targeted towards scientists. And you also don't have to read a full journal to notice an individual paper, it's quite common to have keyword-based alerts on Pubmed or something like that.

The level of detail in a press release makes it usually pretty useless to a scientist, it hides the important details behind language intended for non-scientists. The abstract of a paper is much more useful if you need to decide whether it is of interest for you at all.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#42

Post by trixie_ »

dekhn wrote: post #39

UCSF is my alma mater but this wave of press about aeronabs is just ridiculous. This is research lab level work, far from the clinic. It should not even have been announced via PR, just publications.

It feels like a large amount of that research went into creating a marketable product name.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#43

Post by groby_b »

mc32 wrote: post #40
learc83 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The virus is "known to enter" via the anus? That might be hypothesized by someone, but I haven't heard of any documented cases of anal transmission. Have you?

Here is one report[1] although this one is contracting it from the anus. Early in the pandemic I read about acquiring via the anus, but not sure if that was confirmed. [1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/studies-...

That's not what that report says. At all.

"Chinese scientists report evidence of an oral-fecal transmission route for COVID-19 viruses and show that, in hospitalized patients, viral RNA was found in anal swabs and in blood samples."

I.e. you find RNA in anal swabs & blood. It leaves your body that way. Which is a well-known fact, and might be very useful in population-level surveillance. It also means you should put the lid down before flushing, lest you create something lovingly known as a "toiled plume".

It does not mean you get infected via the anus.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#44

Post by djsumdog »

eigenvalue wrote: post #7

Won't this take too long to run human trials on for safety/efficacy for it to really matter? My understanding is that a vaccine will likely come out within 6 months or so. They mention that it's an older compound, but sounds like they made some novel changes to it. Since this situation is so much a race against time, we are probably better off focusing on older, better-understood compounds that don't need to be teste…

It's very unlikely a safe vaccine will come out six months from now. It's even more insane to think most people around the world will allow themselves to be injected with something developed in less than a year.

Effective treatment will be much more likely to hit the market than a vaccine.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#45

Post by jrumbut »

fabian2k wrote: post #41
derefr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take it as science reporting, mainly intended to be of interest to scientists or to people who follow the progress of science , then it's sensible. It's similar to the materials-science reporting they do for battery technologies. These releases coming from University PR departments (this one's from UCSF) aren't really supposed to make it into newspapers for wide consumption. Their target audience is: 1. the pe…

I've never seen any scientists reading press releases instead of papers, they are certainly not targeted towards scientists. And you also don't have to read a full journal to notice an individual paper, it's quite common to have keyword-based alerts on Pubmed or something like that. The level of detail in a press release makes it usually pretty useless to a scientist, it hides the important details behind language in…

I think you're right that the UCSF public relations team is doing neither hard hitting investigative journalism nor the sort of critical pre-Phase 1 analysis that prevents wasted effort in medical device development.

I enjoyed hearing about this new approach to infection control that is its infancy regardless. I felt a little hope for a creative solution to our current crisis and I didn't have to wade through the literature on camelid antibodies to do it.

New technology has always relied on a certain underlying optimism that you can do something that's new and better against the odds (since most fail).

Would you like this better if there was a disclaimer explaining in vitro/in vivo or just the long road from basic research to wide spread deployment?

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#46

Post by fabian2k »

jrumbut wrote: post #45
fabian2k wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any scientists reading press releases instead of papers, they are certainly not targeted towards scientists. And you also don't have to read a full journal to notice an individual paper, it's quite common to have keyword-based alerts on Pubmed or something like that. The level of detail in a press release makes it usually pretty useless to a scientist, it hides the important details behind language in…

I think you're right that the UCSF public relations team is doing neither hard hitting investigative journalism nor the sort of critical pre-Phase 1 analysis that prevents wasted effort in medical device development. I enjoyed hearing about this new approach to infection control that is its infancy regardless. I felt a little hope for a creative solution to our current crisis and I didn't have to wade through the lit…

The Statnews article I linked is a good example of reporting for this kind of very early result. It does clearly mention that this is at an early stage and that no clinical data has been collected yet. I think this is certainly interesting, it's just so tiring to see this kind of stuff turn up again and again in extremely misleading articles in mainstream media.

Though I think it would have been better to wait until peer review before making a press release. This is not a paper that has immediate clinical applications, and the peer review might still turn up some problems with the paper.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#47

Post by EricE »

smiley1437 wrote: post #34

Oh great... "Hey why aren't you wearing a mask?" "No worries I'm using inhalable protection" rolls eyes

Speaking of eyes I wonder if you can "inhale" it into your eyes too.

Viruses can enter the body more than just orally and even though we think it's primarily through the respiratory system, we aren't sure yet.

Even having expressed doubt, something is better than nothing. And if it eliminates requiring face masks it would be worth it alone for that.

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#48

Post by smiley1437 »

EricE wrote: post #47
smiley1437 wrote: post #34

Oh great... "Hey why aren't you wearing a mask?" "No worries I'm using inhalable protection" rolls eyes

Speaking of eyes I wonder if you can "inhale" it into your eyes too. Viruses can enter the body more than just orally and even though we think it's primarily through the respiratory system, we aren't sure yet. Even having expressed doubt, something is better than nothing. And if it eliminates requiring face masks it would be worth it alone for that.

I’m guessing any mucous membrane (eyes, mouth, nasal passages and I swear some other posts here said anus) is a risk but apparently lung cells are the most vulnerable

Re: ‘AeroNabs’ – Inhalable Protection Against Covid-19

#49

Post by prepend »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #30
prepend wrote: post #6

“Llama inspired design” is quite amazing for being a conscious design choice. It does look like a llama, but is that a good thing? Are llamas in the UX toolkit as an animal that is both semi-exotic yet familiar enough to elicit positive reactions. I encountered a bunch on Peru trails and they were pretty ornery (compared to yaks or sheep) and the 30 or so different Quechua locals I talked with said they were pretty b…

This has to be a bot, right?

Not a bot, I think the inhaler looks like a llama and that’s what I meant.
Post reply on HN