Really?One estimate is that early use would have saved ~13,000 lives
everybody
Really?
Had the drug had been used to treat patients in the UK from the start of the pandemic, up to 5,000 lives could have been saved, researchers say.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281
The way they're reporting it is very accurate. Which is confusing as most PR releases use slightly different metrics.It's not quite the wonder drug it's being touted as.
View attachment 196292
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53061281
The way they're reporting it is very accurate. Which is confusing as most PR releases use slightly different metrics.
With this treatment roughly 25% fewer people who needed to go on ventilators died. In the group that had no particular treatment, other than the usual antibiotics, (very roughly) 40% died. When they were given the treatment only around 30% died.
When given to the less slickly people who didn't need ventilators, or weren't suitable for them, it still saved lives but more people needed to be treated to save a life, as most of them would have survived anyway.
It really is great news, not a magic bullet but great news. Since this stuff is out of patent and easy to make it is much easier to get hold of than remdesivier, which is a few thousand times more expensive, harder to make, less effective, and in very short supply. And was until today the best treatment we knew of.
Me neitherThere is no bad news here as far as I can see.
It's not quite the wonder drug it's being touted as.
Whilst the UK response has probably been too late and no doubt many many mistakes have undoubtedly been made, we need to compare like for like, before that assertion could be verified, that said, once done, if done I doubt it'll make a huge difference.