This seems interesting, but I don't really understand how this is potentially better than a good vaccine. Theoretically if we had had the capacity to create enough vaccine, and the willingness to...
This seems interesting, but I don't really understand how this is potentially better than a good vaccine. Theoretically if we had had the capacity to create enough vaccine, and the willingness to use it, couldn't we have eradicated the virus that way? But people gonna people. What makes an antiviral more likely to eradicate Coronavirus? Or is it just more effective at preventing illness than the vaccines that we have?
Edit: I wanna reiterate because I'm not sure I was very clear. I don't understand this, lol. I'm speaking out of ignorance here.
The site seems to be playing to a fairly conservative audience. The article downplays vaccines and the first ad on the page was a fear-mongering anti critical race theory piece of click bait....
The site seems to be playing to a fairly conservative audience. The article downplays vaccines and the first ad on the page was a fear-mongering anti critical race theory piece of click bait.
Edit: I want to add I’m still excited about good anti-virals. But we should be using anti-virals in addition to vaccines. Not doing so is like skipping on saving for retirement because you suspect you’ll get a large inheritance.
The vaccines we currently have don't stop infection, they control the seriousness of the infection when it happens. Even if 100% vaccination rate was achieved, COVID would still be around.
The vaccines we currently have don't stop infection, they control the seriousness of the infection when it happens. Even if 100% vaccination rate was achieved, COVID would still be around.
I may be misunderstanding the science or misunderstanding your comment, but my understanding was that the Vaccines do prevent infection, just not in 100% of exposures. I think the effectiveness...
I may be misunderstanding the science or misunderstanding your comment, but my understanding was that the Vaccines do prevent infection, just not in 100% of exposures. I think the effectiveness I've seen is between 60% to 80% effective at preventing infection (although it may be lower for Delta/Omicron), and they are much more effective at preventing serious illness and hospitalization.
Is there some thought that an antiviral like this would be more effective? I'm just wondering whether this is actually significant news, although I suppose that any additions to the toolbox against Covid are probably useful.
Vaccines decrease your chance of infection, they decrease the seriousness of the illness when you catch it anyway, and then they decrease your chance of passing it on to others. But they're...
Vaccines decrease your chance of infection, they decrease the seriousness of the illness when you catch it anyway, and then they decrease your chance of passing it on to others.
But they're nowhere near 100% effective at any of those things ... and there are still many people that can't (safely) get vaccinated ... and finally, anti-virals just work differently, so it's another tool in the box.
Thank you for the reminder that some people can't safely be vaccinated, or that some folks have suppressed immune systems that don't benefit as much from vaccination. I hadn't considered that when...
Thank you for the reminder that some people can't safely be vaccinated, or that some folks have suppressed immune systems that don't benefit as much from vaccination. I hadn't considered that when thinking about the significance of an anti-viral for Covid.
This seems interesting, but I don't really understand how this is potentially better than a good vaccine. Theoretically if we had had the capacity to create enough vaccine, and the willingness to use it, couldn't we have eradicated the virus that way? But people gonna people. What makes an antiviral more likely to eradicate Coronavirus? Or is it just more effective at preventing illness than the vaccines that we have?
Edit: I wanna reiterate because I'm not sure I was very clear. I don't understand this, lol. I'm speaking out of ignorance here.
The site seems to be playing to a fairly conservative audience. The article downplays vaccines and the first ad on the page was a fear-mongering anti critical race theory piece of click bait.
Edit: I want to add I’m still excited about good anti-virals. But we should be using anti-virals in addition to vaccines. Not doing so is like skipping on saving for retirement because you suspect you’ll get a large inheritance.
Ah, I have ads blocked so I didn't see that. Still, Belgian conservatives seem to be a bit more subtle than ours here in the US
The vaccines we currently have don't stop infection, they control the seriousness of the infection when it happens. Even if 100% vaccination rate was achieved, COVID would still be around.
I may be misunderstanding the science or misunderstanding your comment, but my understanding was that the Vaccines do prevent infection, just not in 100% of exposures. I think the effectiveness I've seen is between 60% to 80% effective at preventing infection (although it may be lower for Delta/Omicron), and they are much more effective at preventing serious illness and hospitalization.
Is there some thought that an antiviral like this would be more effective? I'm just wondering whether this is actually significant news, although I suppose that any additions to the toolbox against Covid are probably useful.
Vaccines decrease your chance of infection, they decrease the seriousness of the illness when you catch it anyway, and then they decrease your chance of passing it on to others.
But they're nowhere near 100% effective at any of those things ... and there are still many people that can't (safely) get vaccinated ... and finally, anti-virals just work differently, so it's another tool in the box.
Thank you for the reminder that some people can't safely be vaccinated, or that some folks have suppressed immune systems that don't benefit as much from vaccination. I hadn't considered that when thinking about the significance of an anti-viral for Covid.
Yes, you're right. It does tamp down the chance of infection. I meant that it wasn't perfect at doing so.