COVID 19 effects on summer economy

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Yes because the NYT always tells the truth. They forgot the other side. If the French continue to have success with ZPac and Chloriquin it could be much less time.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

NO. First, I was careful to say "suggests", because the Times made clear that nobody knows for sure.

Second--If I had a tax question, I would ask a CPA (like you?). So I would hope you would ask a drug developer how long a drug development process takes. The drug timeline is not from the Times, it is my (semi) professional opinion. Clinical trials take months to perform and evaluate, a pharmaceutical production line takes months to ramp up. Even if we were optimistic that currently approved drugs would work, we could not prove this with reasonable certainty and produce supply for the entire country (world?) before July 1. If you spend just a few minutes investigating this with the information sources of your choice, I think you'll agree

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

NO. First, I was careful to say "suggests", because the Times made clear that nobody knows for sure.

Second--If I had a tax question, I would ask a CPA (like you?). So I would hope you would ask a drug developer how long a drug development process takes. The drug timeline is not from the Times, it is my (semi) professional opinion. Clinical trials take months to perform and evaluate, a pharmaceutical production line takes months to ramp up. Even if we were optimistic that currently approved drugs would work, we could not prove this with reasonable certainty and produce supply for the entire country (world?) before July 1. If you spend just a few minutes investigating this with the information sources of your choice, I think you'll agree

If you did investigate you would see Bayer already has a large supply of Chloriquin available.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by joey2665

If you did investigate you would see Bayer already has a large supply of Chloriquin available.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I know--I saw that this morning in the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/h...sultPosition=1

But--and here's a question for the group--what is the absolute minimum amount of time to show that a drug is effective at helping a single patient for, say, one month? Or two months? Or three months? Correct answers--obviously(?)--are 30, 60, 90 days.

Now consider that you must recruit hundreds or maybe thousands of volunteers to participate in this study. Now consider that the data will be incredibly large and complex to evaluate, typically taking months (though perhaps not this time). Finally, when we say "a large supply", remember that we need to dose the entire world. All of a sudden, "millions" is not a large supply.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I know--I saw that this morning in the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/h...sultPosition=1

But--and here's a question for the group--what is the absolute minimum amount of time to show that a drug is effective at helping a single patient for, say, one month? Or two months? Or three months? Correct answers--obviously(?)--are 30, 60, 90 days.

Now consider that you must recruit hundreds or maybe thousands of volunteers to participate in this study. Now consider that the data will be incredibly large and complex to evaluate, typically taking months (though perhaps not this time). Finally, when we say "a large supply", remember that we need to dose the entire world. All of a sudden, "millions" is not a large supply.

You are really taking this to the nth degree. We need to start someplace if this works it’s a great place to start we need to get our country back to normal or at least on the road back to being normal otherwise if you follow your plan by the time we get medication to the “” whole world “our economy will be in a severe depression and we won’t have to worry about virus anymore.

How about some positive thinking instead of all the negative posts and doomsday scenario’s


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Leoskeys]

Originally Posted by joey2665

You are really taking this to the nth degree. We need to start someplace if this works it’s a great place to start we need to get our country back to normal or at least on the road back to being normal otherwise if you follow your plan by the time we get medication to the “” whole world “our economy will be in a severe depression and we won’t have to worry about virus anymore.

How about some positive thinking instead of all the negative posts and doomsday scenario’s


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

They aren’t negative posts, they are realistic posts. We would all love to start getting back to normal April 1st! But that’s NINE days from now! Based on the trajectory you can call a April 1st “positive thinking”, but also very unrealistic. We are all on the same team and all want this to be resolved the right way. Yes, the economy is screwed for awhile, but let’s not rush and mess this up even further.

[Newbiesaukee]

Just a few words about testing. I am not an expert in some of this, and welcome facts.

The test, as I understand it, is not a blood test such as would be used to measure past infection. It is also not a culture such as a throat or urine culture where the specimen is cultured on some sort of artificial media.

Rather the test is actually utilizing the genetic footprint of the virus itself from specimens in the back of the throat. I believe it uses viral RNA fragments.

The rest is a bit more of my opinion. IF the goal is to learn about how quickly the virus spreads, who it is likely to attack ,etc. That is, to learn about the actual behavior of the virus which is vital information, then the entire population needs to be tested. I believe Iceland is close to this, South Korea and a few other countries are also trying The larger the area, the better the result. But again, all should be tested in the ideal situation.

On the other hand, when should an individual be tested? This is the confusing issue. If “tests on demand” were available, no problem. But they are not, not enough test kits, not enough personnel, etc.

Using myself as an example, and I am in the older risk group, I am pretty much trying to avoid other people and have stocked my house. If I get fever, cough, or other symptoms I would just hang in there with the usual remedies. Only if my condition worsened with respect to serious breathing difficulties would I call my provider and ask where to go OR I would go directly to the hospital and they would triage me to decide if I needed to be admitted. A test would be helpful to rule out a treatable condition such as the flu. A positive test would alert other medical personnel to,protect themselves. But again, the test would have no use to me personally. In other words, in the present test availability, there is no reason for the average person to be tested. Not ideal and lots of exceptions....medical personnel, important people whose results would affect many others, etc.

in a sense, in the U.S. we just do not have the ability to test “on demand.” It did not have to be that way and when this is over, it should be investigated as to why we are in this situation. But that is for more calm, and hopefully, more deliberative times.