On Remdesivir ... in 1,090 test cases it dropped the mortality rate from 11.6% to 8.0%

[Botany]

Results from the preliminary trial show remdesivir improved recovery time for coronavirus patients from 15 to 11 days. That's similar to the effect that the influenza drug Tamiflu has on flu. Tamiflu also doesn't cure patients quickly, but can reduce how long they are sick.
"Although a 31% improvement doesn't seem like a knockout 100%, it is very important proof of concept," Fauci said of remdesivir.

"What it has proven is that a drug can block this virus."

Remdesivir also may reduce the likelihood that patients will die.

"Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group," the NIAID said.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/health/gilead-sciences-remdesivir-covid-19-treatment/index.html

[Happy Hoosier]

1. A friend of mine is a doc at NIH....

She said the real promise here is not what the drug can do by itself, but that this can lead to a fairly effective drug cocktail using existing drugs, or anti-virals late in the research pipeline.

[Botany]

2. Thanx!

I just wanted to point out that it is not the cure all that is being sold to us now. BTW if you
could get your Dr. friend to write a few paragraphs onhow he/she sees this drug now and what
might happen in the future that would be nice.

[dawg day]

4. That is how AIDSgpt controlled..

Not a cure, but a cocktail of drugs that controls theme virus... with Covid, perhaps till it goes away.

[samsingh]

6. true

[Hortensis]

13. Thanks for the info. :) I'm a big NIH admirer.

[sop]

3. It's a good step forward in the fight against COVID-19.

Still, Trump will sell remdesivir as THE "miracle cure"...once he learns how to pronounce it.

[Botany]

5. Trump will start pushing remdesivir after he and Kushner find a way to buy into it.

n/t

[beachbumbob]

7. where is the evidence to back up Fauci's "claim", it does not BLOCK the virus

[thesquanderer]

8. It depends on how you define "block"

In this case I'd say it means "interferes with the progression of" (based on the context).

[thesquanderer]

9. Notable that 11.6% of those who get sick enough to be hospitalized...

...normally don't recover. (We already know that the vast majority--something like 88%--of those who end up on ventilators won't.)

[LisaL]

11. 8 % died with remsedivir, 11.6 % died without.

Difference was not significant, but that just mean that more participants might have been needed to achieve significance. But because drug showed the clear improvement in the duration of the disease, it would no longer be ethical to compare it to placebo.

[thesquanderer]

12. 30% reduction in fatalities is not insignificant

though sample size is a qualifier. I'll leave it to the statisticians and medical experts to make that call!

[Hortensis]

14. Right. Significant to me, and super-sig to them. :)

[LisaL]

18. I guess some don't understand what significance actually means in science.

31 % difference was in the duration of the disease, not in death rate.
Difference in death rate was not significant between drug and placebo group.

[mathematic]

21. 31% is the difference in the mortality rate 11.6 * 69% 8.0%

Not sure why you're saying it's not statistically significant. There's nothing in the OP's article that backs that assertion up.

[thesquanderer]

22. I guess some don't understand math.

An 8% death rate vs. an 11.6% death rate means 31% fewer people die. So yes, we ARE talking about a difference in deaths here, not duration.

That said, sample size also affects statistical significance.

[LisaL]

17. Reduction in fatalities was not significant between drug and placebo group.

It really makes no difference as to what it is to you, since per the study the difference in death rate was not significant.

[DeminPennswoods]

19. Would you rather have an 88% chance of

living or 92% chance?

[LisaL]

20. Again, do people not understand what statistical significance is?

The study can't claim the drug caused any decrease in death rate because the difference is not significant.
In other words, they can't say there is a difference in death rate between a drug group and placebo group.
And never mind your question, there was 11.6% rate of dying in placebo group and 8% rate of dying in drug group, which were not statistically different from each other (not 92 % and 88 %).

[thesquanderer]

23. re: "not 92 % and 88 %" - Those figures are also correct.

If 8% die, then 92% don't die.

If 11.6% die (we'll round to 12 here), then 88% don't die.

[DeminPennswoods]

24. It sure makes a difference for those statistically insignificant

people who would live rather than die, doesn't it?

[Dem2]

10. Was hoping it was going to be better than this based on initial reports

...but we'll take it. As noted above, in combination with other drugs it may be the beginning on an effective treatment.

[msongs]

15. trump PR - look it's THE cure we win nt

[JCMach1]

16. HYPE

Just read the studies... This is NOT the only one of this drug.