Biff #SARSisAirborne 🍉
That person’s science “communication” is always harmful, they’ve been doing the same thing for years with nasal sprays and every one of those studies that has been released, to advocate for people having less protection. The 2nd half of their post makes more sense, they’re getting into real details about the reduction in COVID incidence that may sway someone’s opinion of the drug. It’s notable that it has a lower reduction against all COVID compared to just symptomatic COVID, but that’s no secret, it’s directly in the study’s opening abstract. I don’t think their interpretation of expanding the effectiveness window to day 28 makes much sense, because you have to consider the size of a household and secondary exposures. In a larger household, for example, the the index case may infect person 2, who then goes on to infect person 3 (the Xocova user) 25 days later, even though person 3 didn’t receive the infection directly from the index case, which is what the course of Xocova was designed to prevent. In a smaller household, or if everyone in the house decides to take Xocova, that confounder would obviously go away. I have no idea what they’re trying to say with the 1st part of the post about susceptibility. It’s true that mutations are an issue to keep an eye out for with SARS-CoV-2 and our current 3CLPro antivirals, but I haven’t seen any huge issues reported yet. The entire post is just claiming that the study made a massive miscalculation but then not explaining how. I’m a fairly skeptical person, and I’m one of the last people to defend big pharma, but I truly don’t think that they “figured out something all the world’s top scientists and doctor’s missed! Everyone come look!” here… I’ll probably take a look at some point and report back if I notice anything