Journalists love to find scary quotes, and there are plenty of experts out there who want to include in their remarks some cautionary statements. But all these quotes about reinfection and non-immunity are just that. From what we know about other corona viruses, including SAR-COV1, people do develop IgM, IgG, and IgA antibodies, IgG sticks around for a few years (long enough for a vaccine to be available), and people with IgG do not get reinfected.
Sure, there are exceptions. The immune system is very complex, and we have autoimmune diseases that screw it up, patients taking immunosuppresants, and people with AIDS. So there will be exceptions. But those will most likely be rare. From a Public Health point of view, people get infected, develop antibodies, and then are immune for some number of years.
Several antiviral drugs look promising. That VA retrospective study that said more people died with hydroxychloroquine than without was garbage: They gave hydroxychloroquine to the sickest of the sick, way too late for a drug that helps prevent virus replication. They also gave no zinc, which is the whole point of using the zinc ionophore, hydroxychloroquine.
The early remdesivir studies look very good, and at least one of those is a double-blind study with a decent experimental design. And finally, patients who develop cytokine storm and go into ARDS have a standard RA immune system modifier drug that selectively knocks out interleukin-6 to calm the storm without interfering with their ability to develop antibodies.
I am not entirely sure but I could swear I heard that there were two separate VA studies, so it is possible they screwed up one of them, or even both. I'll have to check again, because that's right down our alley, what with Karen and all. If that drug is dangerous, I'd be hesitant about them giving it to her if she got sick.
Hate to say it but it looks as if the Remdesivir study is looking lke a bust,
according to leaked data from the Gilead Pharmaceuticals study.
“A draft document was provided by the authors to WHO and inadvertently posted on the website and taken down as soon as the mistake was noticed. The manuscript is undergoing peer review and we are waiting for a final version before WHO comments,” said WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic.
Gilead is pushing back, however. So maybe it might be another case of jumping the gun?
According to Gilead spokesperson Amy Flood, the company believes “the post included inappropriate characterization of the study” since it cannot “enable statistically meaningful conclusions” since it was stopped too early. She added that “trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early in disease.”
“Many studies are being run to test remdesivir, and this one will not be the final word,” Stat reports.