Re: _|Virologist [G. Laver] Endorses Plan to Help Business Stockpile Tamiflu, But Not as Prophylactic|_
I'm glad to see that some illogical things in the anti-virus action becomes visible, and was aported some policy changings even from the drugs cofinder prof. Laver point of view.
All the biological points of view of prof. Laver can be condivided (cong. to his work/efforts).
But the social/work./staff arrangements wroted to be the ways that will resolve the main question of an very early administration of the antiviral (6-12 hours after the onset) to the mass of pandemic infected peoples is unfortunately the big weak link of such type of antiviral policy.
The main non-biological problems which will appear in such frangents, was well wroted in the #8 post of this thread.
Dr. Laver in his newest news release tried to mitigate and resolve the above problems.
Decentralizated points of distribution with an (or more) dedicated staff to assure the state of the illness by rapid tests can be done for the persons quarantined in such places, or be at the site when somebody exibit an flu illness.
But thinking that all this various working, and teaching places, will be "in time - 12 hours give the antiviral", and that such centers would be trained eficiently now, IMO it is a little bit unreal.
Even if some very disciplinated, good organized, and trained country could do this, and be fully prepared before the pandemic starts, that will be impossible for the vast majority of under-developed countries.
As JJ, and we all detect, the early (now not 2 days, half a day) antiviral use is the main problem here.
Because of it the WHO guid. after 05., and prior the last year poping Tam. resistant cases suggest an possible antiviral prophilactic need during an period of 1-2 months (the first main vawe punching priod).
Swallowing even 2 boxes of antivirals is not an peace of cake.
Doing it 1, or 2 months is heroic, indeed, and it can change the strain.
But even acknowledging this, and straying onto the opinion that no prophilactic use is the better thing to do, this logic would probably fail in their technical exibition.
From the illnessed patient point of view, looking at the "treat, not try to prevent" option, it's easy to compare with other illness (diferent microbes) with dual option: malaria - no proph. use of meds in the malaria zone, aids - no use of prophilactic, polio - no vacc., etc.
Switching back to prophilactic use possibility - maybe every town health estab. would inform it's population when are registered enaugh cases (they would be the first unfort. "canarians") to proclamate the start of an prophilactic use for all - but that would means that the town have antivirals for all.
Even if the global guidel., changes, and it will be no antivir. proph., the "real-time use" must be solved.
Seems to be much more easier, more anti-spreading, and logisticaly better, to concentrate the efforts on how to construct an more "black-box" hyper-easy test, which can be driven by any layperson at home, or at the office, at the same moment the person felt an flu-like simptom, than the person take it's stock of antiviral, or got it from the office/factory/health in the best needed schedule of 6 hours.
Virtual worlds, flying to the moon, floating under our heads, sniffing Mars, and such an black box tester can't be done?
No way it can't!
