BillTheGOAT wrote:Spoiler:
This.
Moderators: bisme37, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts
BillTheGOAT wrote:Spoiler:
exculpatory wrote:PS Understand that carefully designed & adequately powered, randomized, double blind, prospective Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA to prove that a drug has appropriate efficacy & an acceptable safety profile. Random off the cuff use of 1 of these 3 drugs in a VERY ill CORVID 19 patient is reasonable in the absence of an approved anti-viral therapy, but proves nothing.
itrsteve wrote:Damn, I picked up game tickets and airfare to fly up for the Apr 3rd game against Orlando.
Looking extra unlikely now.
Would have much preferred to spend that wasted money on TP at Costco
Curmudgeon wrote:exculpatory wrote:PS Understand that carefully designed & adequately powered, randomized, double blind, prospective Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA to prove that a drug has appropriate efficacy & an acceptable safety profile. Random off the cuff use of 1 of these 3 drugs in a VERY ill CORVID 19 patient is reasonable in the absence of an approved anti-viral therapy, but proves nothing.
If the patient receiving the drug lives when he or she would otherwise have died, that proves something, yes? We are not looking for Campbell and Stanley purity here, are we?
Curmudgeon wrote:exculpatory wrote:PS Understand that carefully designed & adequately powered, randomized, double blind, prospective Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA to prove that a drug has appropriate efficacy & an acceptable safety profile. Random off the cuff use of 1 of these 3 drugs in a VERY ill CORVID 19 patient is reasonable in the absence of an approved anti-viral therapy, but proves nothing.
If the patient receiving the drug lives when he or she would otherwise have died, that proves something, yes? We are not looking for Campbell and Stanley purity here, are we?
exculpatory wrote:Curmudgeon wrote:exculpatory wrote:PS Understand that carefully designed & adequately powered, randomized, double blind, prospective Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA to prove that a drug has appropriate efficacy & an acceptable safety profile. Random off the cuff use of 1 of these 3 drugs in a VERY ill CORVID 19 patient is reasonable in the absence of an approved anti-viral therapy, but proves nothing.
If the patient receiving the drug lives when he or she would otherwise have died, that proves something, yes? We are not looking for Campbell and Stanley purity here, are we?
Read what I wrote.
Slax wrote:The hospital my wife works in has their first COVID-19 case. Pretty scary! This is the first time I've felt like it's an imminent threat instead of an abstract one.
Curmudgeon wrote:exculpatory wrote:Curmudgeon wrote:
If the patient receiving the drug lives when he or she would otherwise have died, that proves something, yes? We are not looking for Campbell and Stanley purity here, are we?
Read what I wrote.
Yes, I agree with the bolded. But it's the new drugs that need to be tested asap. On people. Think Walter Reed.
exculpatory wrote: The drug, which previously failed in a study on Ebola virus, is also being studied in smaller trials in China and the U.S.”
CSL_1904 wrote:Things are getting a bit out of control over here in Europe. This is really bad, the worst side of globalization. Still, it baffles me that authorities are not better prepared to deal with stuff like this and in many cases have reacted far too late and not with enough force to prevent the spreading.
Unfortunately I believe it's just a matter of days before this becomes a real issue in the US aswell. Good luck to you guys.
Slax wrote:The hospital my wife works in has their first COVID-19 case. Pretty scary! This is the first time I've felt like it's an imminent threat instead of an abstract one.
Tommy Heinsohn wrote:The game is not over until they look you in the face and start crying.