Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
In some respects if they really had a successful treatment, given the fact Synairgen aren't equipped right now to match potential demand around the world, it could be seen more like assistance than competition I'd think couldn't it? The main thing is EUA for Synairgen ASAP I think (and hopefully an extremely effective product), both for our share price and preventing Covid deaths (and as a consequence allowing more opening up too). As and when other valid treatments turn up it could only help to end the pandemic globally I'd have thought.
Sorry ProfSH, I just called you ProfSD, but I guess it's understood my comments were in reply to you anyway. I was just putting the other side of the coin over to you anyway, as food for thought. I think the first lockdown should have come earlier in March 2020, and then the infections might have been able to be controlled or even eliminated (obviously if it was to happen all over the world it would have taken a coordinated and quick response from the WHO and each government), but yeah let's agree that we hope Synairgen can have a big impact very soon for as many groups as possible (clinically vulnerable, deficient in interferon levels, those admitted to hospital with Covid, long Covid sufferers) all over the world. Maybe it's even possible Synairgen inhalers will be introduced before long, similar to asthma ones? The main thing is successful trial completion and emergency approval, plus assistance to ramp up production though at the moment I'm sure.
Cancer patients are more vulnerable to Covid, so if Covid is left to wreak havoc without lockdowns, not only is it inevitable that there would be more Covid patients taking up hospital time and space, but cancer patients would also be more at risk from the virus itself if not shielded from it. I agree about Synairgen though - I really hope it can have a big impact and can help things get back to normal (it just seems like it should have been speeded through with more urgency). I don't think the logic of sacrificing a certain amount of elderly and 'weaker' people who would otherwise live much longer, to Covid (but neither to use your war analogy do I like the sacrificing of naive kids by monsters like Blair who are quite happy to dump a load of depleted uranium over Iraq and deform kids who haven't been born yet - I don't see any of that as acceptable or justifiable collateral damage as it's called). Maybe I take your comments the wrong way a bit ProfSD, but anyway this is my reaction to them. Obviously I very much want my 70+ year old mum to be ok so that plays a big part in how I feel. I think in terms of the economy that controlling inflation is important but as long as that can be done then compensating people unable to work because of Covid, supporting people financially and in terms of 'emergency' support related to mental health or safeguarding issues shouldn't require balancing of the budget. There are books on that topic I think, referring to economies being different to household expenditure in that sense.
Some of them might be the same people Doc, but that seems a bit of a generalisation. Could there not be an equally large group who is saying "I've had 2/3 shots so now I'll do what I want"? They can spread it too. And it was the politicians and seemingly government scientists who locked down so late (inexplicably) in March 2020, and then opened up when it seemed the public compliance levels had been enough to get the virus down to low levels (they wanted to balance the R just below 1 instead of going lower), plus started up foreign travel and then told people from hotspot areas they would need to be tested when they got back only if they didn't make it back before tests came in. Sure, some people believe Covid is a hoax or something, and some are overly careless, but I don't think they are the only ones to blame for the spread are they?
You're calling Molnupiravir a wonder drug, when no more than 50% efficacy against mild/moderate Covid is being claimed, and that seems skewed towards the 'mild' cases (and how many people with 'mild Covid' would take it?), so how much research have you really done?
I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like early intervention is not helpful, but more like it's hard to show the statistical significance in a trial where (thankfully) most people get better anyway, even among the relatively elderly, because the numbers on the trial were not massive, so the contrast with the placebo group wasn't either (but it was zero deaths and hopitalisations in the Synarigen group wasn't it, which is better than what vaccines are now achieving, if it were to continue to be the case).
Maybe things will develop in terms of biomarkers that identify those who would most benefit from the treatment too, to the point it could be delivered after positive tests and mild symptoms, or at least before hospital admission if the data 'proves' it is more effective than current hospital treatment. But being used as a go-to therapeutic for new, breathless, hospital admissions is an alternative route I suppose, maybe for a split strategy of at-home and in-hospital Synairgen Covid treatment?
I'd hope your second paragraph (with the question when will lockdowns end) can be answered by your third paragraph (therapeutics that work, hopefully including, or primarily even, Synairgen). I don't like your first paragraph though (and I hope the 12 recommends are not because of it) because I don't like the logic that says the deaths don't matter as long as there is enough capacity in the NHS to cope with admissions (maybe you want to clarify that's not what you mean).