All things CoronaVirus

[Typical Lax Dad]

Help Wanted! Grave Diggers. Mask Not Needed….customers are already dead!

“While it took just over a year for the COVID-19 death toll tmsnrt.rs/34pvUyi to hit 2.5 million, the next 2.5 million deaths were recorded in just under eight months, according to a Reuters analysis.”

This thing was over July 2020….April 2021 at the latest.

[tech37]

Some good news.

https://apnews.com/article/merck-says-e ... 6a0fffcc60

This may cannibalize Ivermectin sales but Merck is all in.

,,, it won't. The right wing clowns think they are the same thing and Ivermectin costs less.

they're waiting on the principle trial and avoiding covid in the meantime.

slightly disappointed that it wasn't in the 2/3 to 80% neighborhood for more severe disease, but you can't have everything. with such a low powered trial for endpoint of death (0 vs 8), it may be tough to make anything of that yet, but promising.
couldn't tell, did they actually stop the trial or just applying with interim results?

merck's gonna clean up at $1000+ a pop.

and question... for the purposes of what merck means by 10 million doses... is a dose per pill, daily regimen (8 pills) or full regimen (40 pills)?

Merck price is currently $700 per 5 day (40 pill) treatment course. Cheaper than all the other early treatment options.

What about Ivermectin?

... Tech assures us that folks will give up Ivermectin.

More lying from 72...

What I actually said was... IF Molnupiravir is found to be effective and safe, IVM will be forgotten as a Covid therapeutic.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Some good news.

https://apnews.com/article/merck-says-e ... 6a0fffcc60

This may cannibalize Ivermectin sales but Merck is all in.

,,, it won't. The right wing clowns think they are the same thing and Ivermectin costs less.

they're waiting on the principle trial and avoiding covid in the meantime.

slightly disappointed that it wasn't in the 2/3 to 80% neighborhood for more severe disease, but you can't have everything. with such a low powered trial for endpoint of death (0 vs 8), it may be tough to make anything of that yet, but promising.
couldn't tell, did they actually stop the trial or just applying with interim results?

merck's gonna clean up at $1000+ a pop.

and question... for the purposes of what merck means by 10 million doses... is a dose per pill, daily regimen (8 pills) or full regimen (40 pills)?

Merck price is currently $700 per 5 day (40 pill) treatment course. Cheaper than all the other early treatment options.

What about Ivermectin?

... Tech assures us that folks will give up Ivermectin.

More lying from 72...

What I actually said was... IF Molnupiravir is found to be effective and safe, IVM will be forgotten as a Covid therapeutic.

You mean like the vaccine? (IMO).

[SCLaxAttack]

Some good news.

https://apnews.com/article/merck-says-e ... 6a0fffcc60

This may cannibalize Ivermectin sales but Merck is all in.

,,, it won't. The right wing clowns think they are the same thing and Ivermectin costs less.

they're waiting on the principle trial and avoiding covid in the meantime.

slightly disappointed that it wasn't in the 2/3 to 80% neighborhood for more severe disease, but you can't have everything. with such a low powered trial for endpoint of death (0 vs 8), it may be tough to make anything of that yet, but promising.
couldn't tell, did they actually stop the trial or just applying with interim results?

merck's gonna clean up at $1000+ a pop.

and question... for the purposes of what merck means by 10 million doses... is a dose per pill, daily regimen (8 pills) or full regimen (40 pills)?

Merck price is currently $700 per 5 day (40 pill) treatment course. Cheaper than all the other early treatment options.

What about Ivermectin?

... Tech assures us that folks will give up Ivermectin.

More lying from 72...

What I actually said was... IF Molnupiravir is found to be effective and safe, IVM will be forgotten as a Covid therapeutic.

You mean like the vaccine? (IMO).

Hhmmmm, let's see.....

$700 for a treatment or $45 for a vaccine. (Two shots and a booster, and Fed pays $15/shot.)

Some people are so effing dumb. But hey, it's not their money.

[a fan]

What I actually said was... IF Molnupiravir is found to be effective and safe, IVM will be forgotten as a Covid therapeutic.

Why? Why would people who don't trust the government and the FDA suddenly be willing to try a brand new drug?

In other words: how the heck is this new treatment different than the vaccine.

And if you REALLY want to go down a rabbit hole of hypocrisy and a bankrupt set of ethics......you know those nurses who refuse to take the vaccine? I'd wager a year's sales that these nurse would inject the vaccine & give patients Molnupivavir without even a moment's hesitation.

And they wouldn't be able to understand how morally and ethically wrong that is.

THAT is why these nurses should be fired. (and no, this part isn't directed at you, tech)

[wgdsr]

Some good news.

https://apnews.com/article/merck-says-e ... 6a0fffcc60

This may cannibalize Ivermectin sales but Merck is all in.

,,, it won't. The right wing clowns think they are the same thing and Ivermectin costs less.

they're waiting on the principle trial and avoiding covid in the meantime.

slightly disappointed that it wasn't in the 2/3 to 80% neighborhood for more severe disease, but you can't have everything. with such a low powered trial for endpoint of death (0 vs 8), it may be tough to make anything of that yet, but promising.
couldn't tell, did they actually stop the trial or just applying with interim results?

merck's gonna clean up at $1000+ a pop.

and question... for the purposes of what merck means by 10 million doses... is a dose per pill, daily regimen (8 pills) or full regimen (40 pills)?

Merck price is currently $700 per 5 day (40 pill) treatment course. Cheaper than all the other early treatment options.

thanks.
according to reuters, their 10 million doses are full course treatments:
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-10-01/
so we've prepurchased 1.7 million courses with an option for 3.5m.
as this i'd assume if approved will initially be for at risk of severe covid patients.... and only unvaccinated ones?.... there will be people asking who won't get.

and 10 million times 700 is $7 billion. just to start.

[Kismet]

Some good news.

https://apnews.com/article/merck-says-e ... 6a0fffcc60

This may cannibalize Ivermectin sales but Merck is all in.

,,, it won't. The right wing clowns think they are the same thing and Ivermectin costs less.

they're waiting on the principle trial and avoiding covid in the meantime.

slightly disappointed that it wasn't in the 2/3 to 80% neighborhood for more severe disease, but you can't have everything. with such a low powered trial for endpoint of death (0 vs 8), it may be tough to make anything of that yet, but promising.
couldn't tell, did they actually stop the trial or just applying with interim results?

merck's gonna clean up at $1000+ a pop.

and question... for the purposes of what merck means by 10 million doses... is a dose per pill, daily regimen (8 pills) or full regimen (40 pills)?

Merck price is currently $700 per 5 day (40 pill) treatment course. Cheaper than all the other early treatment options.

thanks.
according to reuters, their 10 million doses are full course treatments:
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-10-01/
so we've prepurchased 1.7 million courses with an option for 3.5m.
as this i'd assume if approved will initially be for at risk of severe covid patients.... and only unvaccinated ones?.... there will be people asking who won't get.

and 10 million times 700 is $7 billion. just to start.

Of course, the smart money is take a vaccine for FREE (which only costs the Feds $7 per) which eliminates the need for this treatment.

Question - If the Feds' cost is $700/treatment does the consumer have any payment responsibility? If not, why incent people to take a $700 drug when a $7 vaccine essentially eliminates that need.

Additional note - this $700 Merck treatment has only a 50% efficacy against hospitalization and death while the $7 vaccines are all north of 90% efficacy.

[a fan]

Question - If the Feds' cost is $700/treatment does the consumer have any payment responsibility? If not, why incent people to take a $700 drug when a $7 vaccine essentially eliminates that need.

As a taxpayer, I'd be satisfied if the anti vaxxer could tell me why it's ok to take one brand new FDA treatment (the pill), and not the other (the vaccine).

Think: AP exam written portion. If they can't give a good answer? Sorry mate, you don't get the pill without cash up front.

They give a good answer? The pill's on me.

[wgdsr]

Some good news.

https://apnews.com/article/merck-says-e ... 6a0fffcc60

This may cannibalize Ivermectin sales but Merck is all in.

,,, it won't. The right wing clowns think they are the same thing and Ivermectin costs less.

they're waiting on the principle trial and avoiding covid in the meantime.

slightly disappointed that it wasn't in the 2/3 to 80% neighborhood for more severe disease, but you can't have everything. with such a low powered trial for endpoint of death (0 vs 8), it may be tough to make anything of that yet, but promising.
couldn't tell, did they actually stop the trial or just applying with interim results?

merck's gonna clean up at $1000+ a pop.

and question... for the purposes of what merck means by 10 million doses... is a dose per pill, daily regimen (8 pills) or full regimen (40 pills)?

Merck price is currently $700 per 5 day (40 pill) treatment course. Cheaper than all the other early treatment options.

thanks.
according to reuters, their 10 million doses are full course treatments:
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-10-01/
so we've prepurchased 1.7 million courses with an option for 3.5m.
as this i'd assume if approved will initially be for at risk of severe covid patients.... and only unvaccinated ones?.... there will be people asking who won't get.

and 10 million times 700 is $7 billion. just to start.

Of course, the smart money is take a vaccine for FREE (which only costs the Feds $7 per) which eliminates the need for this treatment.

Question - If the Feds' cost is $700/treatment does the consumer have any payment responsibility? If not, why incent people to take a $700 drug when a $7 vaccine essentially eliminates that need.

Additional note - this $700 Merck treatment has only a 50% efficacy against hospitalization and death while the $7 vaccines are all north of 90% efficacy.

hospitalization is really the only one where a number yet can be determined with any accuracy (internet medical certificate). there were fewer than 800 people measured. zero deaths vs 8 deaths.
not sure the vaxx any longer is going to be north of 90% with delta, though hopefully it is.

if it's like other treatments, uncle sam is picking up the tab. i believe the incentive is that they'd like fewer people to be hospitalized and die, given the circumstances at the time (already infected).

pfizer and merck are like $20+ and $30+ per, i believe or in that neighborhood. as far as govt expenditures, we're talking about chump change nowadays regardless of medical interventions.

with the vaxx, you're getting both protection against infection and then after infection. i believe a lot of these drugs are or may be testing as prophylactics, too (certificate).

[wgdsr]

Question - If the Feds' cost is $700/treatment does the consumer have any payment responsibility? If not, why incent people to take a $700 drug when a $7 vaccine essentially eliminates that need.

As a taxpayer, I'd be satisfied if the anti vaxxer could tell me why it's ok to take one brand new FDA treatment (the pill), and not the other (the vaccine).

Think: AP exam written portion. If they can't give a good answer? Sorry mate, you don't get the pill without cash up front.

They give a good answer? The pill's on me.

autism.

[a fan]

Question - If the Feds' cost is $700/treatment does the consumer have any payment responsibility? If not, why incent people to take a $700 drug when a $7 vaccine essentially eliminates that need.

As a taxpayer, I'd be satisfied if the anti vaxxer could tell me why it's ok to take one brand new FDA treatment (the pill), and not the other (the vaccine).

Think: AP exam written portion. If they can't give a good answer? Sorry mate, you don't get the pill without cash up front.

They give a good answer? The pill's on me.

autism.

Heaven help me, but I can't tell if you're kidding or not. Ain't 2021 grand?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Some good news.

https://apnews.com/article/merck-says-e ... 6a0fffcc60

This may cannibalize Ivermectin sales but Merck is all in.

,,, it won't. The right wing clowns think they are the same thing and Ivermectin costs less.

they're waiting on the principle trial and avoiding covid in the meantime.

slightly disappointed that it wasn't in the 2/3 to 80% neighborhood for more severe disease, but you can't have everything. with such a low powered trial for endpoint of death (0 vs 8), it may be tough to make anything of that yet, but promising.
couldn't tell, did they actually stop the trial or just applying with interim results?

merck's gonna clean up at $1000+ a pop.

and question... for the purposes of what merck means by 10 million doses... is a dose per pill, daily regimen (8 pills) or full regimen (40 pills)?

Merck price is currently $700 per 5 day (40 pill) treatment course. Cheaper than all the other early treatment options.

thanks.
according to reuters, their 10 million doses are full course treatments:
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-10-01/
so we've prepurchased 1.7 million courses with an option for 3.5m.
as this i'd assume if approved will initially be for at risk of severe covid patients.... and only unvaccinated ones?.... there will be people asking who won't get.

and 10 million times 700 is $7 billion. just to start.

Of course, the smart money is take a vaccine for FREE (which only costs the Feds $7 per) which eliminates the need for this treatment.

Question - If the Feds' cost is $700/treatment does the consumer have any payment responsibility? If not, why incent people to take a $700 drug when a $7 vaccine essentially eliminates that need.

Additional note - this $700 Merck treatment has only a 50% efficacy against hospitalization and death while the $7 vaccines are all north of 90% efficacy.

hospitalization is really the only one where a number yet can be determined with any accuracy (internet medical certificate). there were fewer than 800 people measured. zero deaths vs 8 deaths.
not sure the vaxx any longer is going to be north of 90% with delta, though hopefully it is.

if it's like other treatments, uncle sam is picking up the tab. i believe the incentive is that they'd like fewer people to be hospitalized and die, given the circumstances at the time (already infected).

pfizer and merck are like $20+ and $30+ per, i believe or in that neighborhood. as far as govt expenditures, we're talking about chump change nowadays regardless of medical interventions.

with the vaxx, you're getting both protection against infection and then after infection. i believe a lot of these drugs are or may be testing as prophylactics, too (certificate).

Reducing the cost of an aspirin by 2 cents would be more impactful when it comes to government savings.

[tech37]

What I actually said was... IF Molnupiravir is found to be effective and safe, IVM will be forgotten as a Covid therapeutic.

Why? Why would people who don't trust the government and the FDA suddenly be willing to try a brand new drug?
Because as I've said more than once now, if the drug WORKS! And is SAFE! That evidence will take, at best months, to years to materialize. In time, if Molnupiravir fulfills all the hype (Fauci's optimism may be the kiss of death for many), why wouldn't sick people take a drug that, not only works, but has a good safety record? Why is that concept so hard to grasp? There will always be those who don't trust, and chance going with the politically stigmatized/disgraced, just to spite authorities, but far fewer if a newer drug actually works and is actually safe.

And IMO, the so-called explosion of IVM usage in US for Covid, is an invention of politics and the politicized media... a whole lot of lying and misinformation in that regard.

In other words: how the heck is this new treatment different than the vaccine.
It's not... yet.

And if you REALLY want to go down a rabbit hole of hypocrisy and a bankrupt set of ethics......you know those nurses who refuse to take the vaccine? I'd wager a year's sales that these nurse would inject the vaccine & give patients Molnupivavir without even a moment's hesitation.
C'mon a fan, that is too easy. If patients agree to vaccination and/or therapeutics, there's no hypocrisy involved. Pandemic or not, healthcare is deeply personal. You make it sound as if the country is over run by Nurse Ratcheds, deviously sticking needles into unsuspecting guinea pigs.

And they wouldn't be able to understand how morally and ethically wrong that is.

THAT is why these nurses should be fired. (and no, this part isn't directed at you, tech)
No offense taken. My niece is an ICU nurse, in 2020 one of the first in NYS to be vaccinated (after Cuomo and his lackies of course) and she might actually agree with you.

[a fan]

Why? Why would people who don't trust the government and the FDA suddenly be willing to try a brand new drug?
Because as I've said more than once now, if the drug WORKS! And is SAFE! That evidence will take, at best months, to years to materialize. In time, if Molnupiravir fulfills all the hype (Fauci's optimism may be the kiss of death for many), why wouldn't sick people take a drug that, not only works, but has a good safety record? Why is that concept so hard to grasp?

We're talking past each other here, my apologies. I'm only referring to anti vaxxers.

C'mon a fan, that is too easy. If patients agree to vaccination and/or therapeutics, there's no hypocrisy involved. Pandemic or not, healthcare is deeply personal.

That's not how morality works.

Pretend that you're a nurse. you're certain that a drug is dangerous. So dangerous, in fact, that YOU won't take said drug, even though your doctor advised you to take it.

Would you knowingly inject this drug---a drug that is so dangerous, than you won't take it yourself-----into a patient in your care?

Of course you wouldn't, tech.

The fact that these nurse's have, and will continue to, inject the vaccine into patients under their care tells you that something else is at work. They don't REALLY think it's dangerous. If they did? they never in a million years inject it into someone they care for.....

Which is precisely why they should either take the vaccine, or resign.

[wgdsr]

you're making quite the leap here. it's "dangerous" vs making my personal decision that for me the tradeoffs don't align yet.

and then treating people that are choosing on their own perogative. i'm not endorsing anyone's choice.

then there's... so we're now down to only being mad at the nurses who in their job are (hypothetically or otherwise) vaccinating people? does that mean a bunch (almost all) are cleared?

[a fan]

you're making quite the leap here. it's "dangerous" vs making my personal decision that for me the tradeoffs don't align yet

You're making it sound like it's a leap by giving a nurse some vague notion of "tradeoffs", instead of giving me a concrete reason for not taking it.

Give me a concrete reason. Let's see how far the leap is.....

Remember---they're supposedly willing to lose their job over not taking it. So you can't give me a flimsy, poorly thought out reason for not taking the shot.

[wgdsr]

you're making quite the leap here. it's "dangerous" vs making my personal decision that for me the tradeoffs don't align yet

You're making it sound like it's a leap by giving a nurse some vague notion of "tradeoffs", instead of giving me a concrete reason for not taking it.

Give me a concrete reason. Let's see how far the leap is.....

Remember---they're supposedly willing to lose their job over not taking it. So you can't give me a flimsy, poorly thought out reason for not taking the shot.

ummm... i don't know their reasons. but, maybe you should get a chat line open somewhere (easy to do) and see. or ask us internet medical certificate holders.

you're assuming ish (imo flimsy) so i am (feel it's more solid).

[a fan]

ummm... i don't know their reasons.

I know. And yet you had no trouble telling me I"m making a leap....when you can't tell me where I'm leaping from, and therefore can't judge the distance....

Give me a concrete reason why they refuse to take the shot. A reason so strong, that they're willing to lose their job over it.

I can't think of any that aren't hypocritical and/or morally wrong.

This stuff matters. 700K dead, and counting...and we have nurses refusing the vaccine. This isn't a parlor game.

[wgdsr]

ummm... i don't know their reasons.

I know. And yet you had no trouble telling me I"m making a leap....when you can't tell me where I'm leaping from, and therefore can't judge the distance....

Give me a concrete reason why they refuse to take the shot. A reason so strong, that they're willing to lose their job over it.

I can't think of any that aren't hypocritical and/or morally wrong.

This stuff matters. 700K dead, and counting...and we have nurses refusing the vaccine. This isn't a parlor game.

you're upset at least a bit. as you say, we're talking past each other.

[MDlaxfan76]

This question seems to have been asked, or almost asked, but I haven't found a clear answer as yet addressing it.

Given the relatively low cost of a vaccination, and high effectiveness, at what point should the government say, ok, that's it, as of date certain, if you ain't been vaccinated and you get infected, the cost of your healthcare is on you. Medicare and Medicaid ain't paying, we're not reimbursing your insurer, and we're green lighting insurance discounts for those who have been vaccinated relative to those who haven't.

On the other hand, if you've been vaccinated (with boosters as recommended) (or had a bonified exception for not, or were not eligible for some reason, eg age), and you get infected, we'll pay for whatever care is necessary.

Seems to me that in a country in which ultimately these choices get made by individuals, though provided whatever incentives for compliance with public health priorities as may be instituted but ultimately made individually, the cost of that individual choice should be borne, as much as possible, by the individual making the decision.

I'm not so sure that's as good as a flat out mandate, but why not do it?