FDA Approves Clinical Trials to Use Antibodies from Recovered Patients(good-news.network)
good-news.network
FDA Approves Clinical Trials to Use Antibodies from Recovered Patients
http://good-news.network/article/3XqVFb
25 comments
may it make sense when a pandemic starts next time to preemptively infect and quarantine large group of healthy people in order to have the antibody plasma ready in sufficient quantity by the time when it starts to hit the fan?
I don't think you can ethically intentionally infect people, even volunteers, with a potentially fatal disease. Even some small percentage of young and healthy people are dying from COVID-19.
>I don't think you can ethically intentionally infect people, even volunteers, with a potentially fatal disease.
yet, it is somehow ethical to send young healthy people to kill and die in the meaningless wars driven by corporation profits. I think your ethics has extremely serious ethical flaws.
yet, it is somehow ethical to send young healthy people to kill and die in the meaningless wars driven by corporation profits. I think your ethics has extremely serious ethical flaws.
> Even some small percentage of young and healthy people are dying from COVID-19.
Some small percentage of young people are dying from the flu too, it's unfortunate, and it happens. We need to keep our eyes focused on the statistics not the anecdotes.
Every disease is potentially fatal. We definitely shouldn't intentionally infect anyone. It's just not necessary.
Some small percentage of young people are dying from the flu too, it's unfortunate, and it happens. We need to keep our eyes focused on the statistics not the anecdotes.
Every disease is potentially fatal. We definitely shouldn't intentionally infect anyone. It's just not necessary.
People volunteer to be locked in facilities for 30+ days to be injected with potentially fatal new and poorly understood drugs all the time in exchange for a few thousand dollars.
True, but in a fast-spreading disease we shouldn't have to solicit folks to voluntarily get infected, we can just grab a few people who've tested positive.
>for a few thousand dollars
yep. Even 100K people at $100K would be just $10B, a laughable amount compare to the $6T stimulus in US.
yep. Even 100K people at $100K would be just $10B, a laughable amount compare to the $6T stimulus in US.
Even if its safer to be in that group than not?
Maybe that tells us that particular version of ethics has flaws?
Either way, people can always infect themselves under most ethics.
Either way, people can always infect themselves under most ethics.
I disagree. Infecting yourself can have a high likelihood of causing others to be infected, depending on the pathogen, and risks costing many thousands in medical expenses that will be borne by society at large.
Edit: Society at large bears the cost when healthcare is nationalized. If you get your insurance through your employer, those thousands are paid by your employer and co-workers.
Edit: Society at large bears the cost when healthcare is nationalized. If you get your insurance through your employer, those thousands are paid by your employer and co-workers.
That's actually a fair point.
I only considered the harm to yourself, but the risk you put others in is also a real factor.
I only considered the harm to yourself, but the risk you put others in is also a real factor.
But like you pointed out, there are times when it makes sense. The world is a better place because Barry Marshall gave himself H. pylori.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
I once heard that an acquaintance had participated in a study for which he was injected with a flu virus. I never verified this however.
What's the difference to being a mercenary? People rent their body to fight an opponent, just not a human one.
Do you have a source that young and healthy people are dying from COVID-19? Just curious.
The best I have is the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) which did a study on all 2003 dead (back when that was the number). Only 5 have been under the age of 40 and all of them had medical preconditions.
There are young and healthy people that show heavy symptoms and even need ventilation, but they all seem to survive.
The best I have is the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) which did a study on all 2003 dead (back when that was the number). Only 5 have been under the age of 40 and all of them had medical preconditions.
There are young and healthy people that show heavy symptoms and even need ventilation, but they all seem to survive.
Average age of dead was 80.5 and mode had 3 underlying medical conditions. Based on the distributions of the dead world-wide it's pretty safe to say that overwhelmingly the young and healthy do not succumb. There will always be a fringe minority, as there are with the flu. For reference, the flu and other common perennial viruses cause 40% of all cases of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. [1]
[1] https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/home/topics/pneumonia/bac...
[1] https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/home/topics/pneumonia/bac...
Are you volunteering to be one of the unlucky 2%?
People volunteer to donate organs despite a higher likelihood of harm than getting COVID-19 if you are 18-24 without any comorbidities.
If this would be an effective solution people would volunteer for sure.
The UK had 750,000 people signing up to volunteer for the NHS which could expose them to getting infected in the midst of the epidemic without guarantee of even getting admitted to a hospital if the situation would continue to escalate.
If you think you won’t get 1000’s of volunteers for a relatively low risk infection that would put you under 24/7 VIP medical observation and would likely get you first access to any medical assistance required if things would turn to the worse you clearly don’t understand people well enough.
And this is without the potential financial and societal benefits those people would directly and indirectly receive.
People are doing a lot more dangerous things for a lot less of a pay out in a daily basis.
If this would be an effective solution people would volunteer for sure.
The UK had 750,000 people signing up to volunteer for the NHS which could expose them to getting infected in the midst of the epidemic without guarantee of even getting admitted to a hospital if the situation would continue to escalate.
If you think you won’t get 1000’s of volunteers for a relatively low risk infection that would put you under 24/7 VIP medical observation and would likely get you first access to any medical assistance required if things would turn to the worse you clearly don’t understand people well enough.
And this is without the potential financial and societal benefits those people would directly and indirectly receive.
People are doing a lot more dangerous things for a lot less of a pay out in a daily basis.
If it'd save a bunch of lives, I'd volunteer if someone were hired to help my wife with the kids (along with a generous insurance package and wage) and if it were early in the pandemic where there's still plenty of healthcare system capacity.
In a young person with no co-morbid conditions, the risk is not 2%, it's 0.1% -- at most, and we're all going to get it. #flattenthecurve is not about containment, it's about slowing the spread so that hospital capacity to care for the small fraction who need it can be ramped to match. Sooner or later some 270 million Americans will have had it, and we'll develop herd immunity. It'll most likely end up a seasonal virus like the flu.
With the high R0 and the fact so many people end up with no symptoms, negligible symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms, it can't really be stopped.
I'd volunteer. Not that I think we should, though.
With the high R0 and the fact so many people end up with no symptoms, negligible symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms, it can't really be stopped.
I'd volunteer. Not that I think we should, though.
giving the [good] health and history i don't see any serious risk for me from the virus, and considering that it is hardly a choice - like many i'll most probably get it in time anyway as i don't believe it can be contained until herd immunity is achieved (and many people will die in the meantime until some big breakthrough(s) is achieved like mass availability of the antibody plasma for example) - so personally it is just a matter of getting it earlier or later, getting it in controlled manner/scheduled/prepared/etc. vs. at random time, etc. Some selfish factors may play a role too like having guaranteed medical attention in the low probable case of the things going wrong for example.
No, but you can thaw a couple stem cells, let them specialize toward immune cell lines, replicate to a couple tons and feed them Corona and protein/carb mix.
Definitely not. If we had that level of preparation, we would be testing, tracing, and isolating to contain the outbreak in the first place.
Without having to deliberately put people directly in mortal danger.
Without having to deliberately put people directly in mortal danger.
no
http://good-news.network/article/3XqVFb 302 Redirect http://pubx.co/3XqVFb
301 Redirect https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/new-york-to-deploy-covid-pla...
Ahh, spammy blog with shady ad-block circumvention.