22
votes
US virus plan anticipates 18-month pandemic and widespread shortages: The 100-page federal plan laid out a grim prognosis and outlined a response that would activate agencies across the government
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- U.S. Virus Plan Anticipates 18-Month Pandemic and Widespread Shortages
- Published
- Mar 17 2020
I spent some time doing my homework today.
Realistically, there are at least 50 existing previously approved small-molecule drugs that may treat COVID-19 infection; some of them may prevent infection or attenuate the most dangerous immune responses.
[In the U.S., at least, previous FDA approval means the drugs won't take years for release, have relatively well-known safety profiles, and insurance ought to pay for them if proven effective for COVID-19. I'm personally holding out hope for hydroxychloroquine, since it's easy to produce, cheap, well-tolerated, and I'm already using it for arthritis.]
I don't want to create false expectations, but multiple trials are underway. The In the Pipeline article mentions some caveats, but there's cause for hope.
We know a great deal more now about virology, and specifically coronaviruses, since the SARS and MERS outbreaks. At least one of the drugs showing effectiveness for SARS-CoV might be effective for COVID-19, both as prevention and early treatment. The automated drug screening for various molecular targets [PDF warning] has improved drastically.
I'm not even scratching the surface on biologics.
Ultimately, if we can just delay the spread until there's an effective treatment protocol, we might not be looking at 18 months of siege conditions and millions of deaths. That also keeps production of medical goods closer to demand until a vaccine is available.
Agreed, but I went with what the authors chose to title the article. It is a little alarmist (maybe purposefully so).
They've been walking that back: https://www.axios.com/uk-coronavirus-strategy-boris-johnson-schools-1e4c8c17-99ad-4bea-9d52-3cd266ad0c5b.html
Really? You want one big wave to crash over the health care system at once?
What's a few million deaths to preserve the glut of crap that powers the system?
(No that statement is not serious)
It's not the billionaires or corporations that get hurt by the UK's former 'herd immunity' approach either. It's the poor and the middle class that die and mostly lose loved ones. The rich can afford to pay for exorbitant fees at private health positioned for them. It's not the poor and middle class who have leave to take when they or a loved one gets sick.
There is no winning from this, but there is an option that results in less death and less harm to people. I'll side with that one.
I can sympathize... But what would you really think is going to happen if no quarantine measures would be taken? Tens (possibly even hundreds) of millions would be sick, many missing work for weeks. Millions of people would die, just in the US. There is going to be an enormous economic impact either way. One is more controlled, and the other is not.
Nothing to fear there.
What's the bright outcome of this? I don't know yet, and I've thought about making a thread here asking for input.
I would hope that this would lead to better protections for workers and a better social safety net in general, like the Great Depression did. Maybe the majority of America will finally get on board a Medicare for all style system. Maybe most of the Western world won't be so obsessed with stuff and consumerism and we can finally get a real plan to address climate change. But who knows what the outcome will be? I would expect even big companies to struggle with this as no one was prepared for this event. Who knows what new markets will emerge?
I do know that families will be less stressed if fewer people die, and people will face overall less disruption in their lives, even if their old schedules never return. It's a more predictable approach and leads to less suffering from the population.
We already have a thread about that.
Thanks!