Free Monoclonal Antibodies at Jacksonville Library if You get Covid.

It should absolutely be given to anyone who wants it immediately post-positive test

quote:

---

Good idea for mild cases or not?

---

If you have risk factors, probably a good idea.

My wife (no pics) and I both received the monoclonal antibodies. They were highly effective.

We’ve also had at least 7 other high risk people we know who received them with the same results.

If you have preexisting conditions they are a great treatment.

Note you have to get them early in the course of the infection for them to be effective.

We had to get approved for the product. The PA who did our test sent it into the hospital..

If you don’t have the virus, getting the product is not a great idea.

It can give you temporary immunity, but it wears off quickly (30 days or less).

quote:

---

The fact that we’re not offering this to everyone who gets infected at this point is ridiculous . Upon diagnosis you should be told where you can go to receive your infusion.

---

Should be available right where the tests are administered

What's your take on the functional duties of MA's in regards to its success?

While we are @ it, same for the mRNA once a breakthrough case hits & high viral loads are detected.. what's different for that patients success vs the non vaxxed?

Not looking to debate, likely wont respond.. simply spurring convo and hopefully education.

quote:

---

What's your take on the functional duties of MA's in regards to its success?

While we are @ it, same for the mRNA once a breakthrough case hits & high viral loads are detected.. what's different for that patients success vs the non vaxxed?

Not looking to debate, likely wont respond.. simply spurring convo and hopefully education.

---

@tiguar
@hopeful doc


jump in gents, educate por favor

quote:

---

What's your take on the functional duties of MA's in regards to its success?

While we are @ it, same for the mRNA once a breakthrough case hits & high viral loads are detected.. what's different for that patients success vs the non vaxxed?

---

I think you're asking for my understanding of how it works and why it works and why it's a better option than letting natural infection play out in several instances. If not, then this response is basically worthless. But that's what I'm reading the question as.


All humans create antibodies in response to foreign antigens- from foods, to pollen, to bacteria, to funguses, and so on. The first antibodies are slow to be made. Mature ones tend to show up in around the 2-6 week range, so they aren't particularly useful in fighting a virus that tends to cause most of its major effects early on.
This is an antibody therapy. Humans make tons and tons of different types of antibodies (small immune-system part that binds a very specific target, inactivating it, allowing the rest of the immune system to take care of it).
Making synthetic antibodies for a known target has been sort of the "new direction" of medicine for the last decade or so. There are monoclonal antibodies that treat cholesterol (PCSK-9 inhibitors), a certain type of asthma (Fasenra), and even migraines (emgality, aimovig, ajovy...). Well, they were able to find one that is able to neutralize the COVID virus. It comes in an infusion (IV) instead of a shot (IM/subq). It gives you a "mature" antibody response immediately, reducing the amount of time the virus has to run rampant and multiply while your immune system learns to fight it (the problem with this virus is that it isn't very much like any other virus, so your body sort of has to 'start from scratch' to fight it. It isn't the most virulent (harmful) virus in the history of the world, but the 'novelty' of it makes your immune system a bit slow to respond to it, and these antibodies help you basically act as if you're seen it before). Theoretically, you should still create an immune response to it after getting the infusion that is just as if you hadn't had the infusion. Again, theoretically, you may produce less antibodies up front due to a lower viral load, but that's not really a big concern- the body doesn't necessarily need tons and tons of antibodies all the time. It needs the cells with the blueprints (memory cells) to know how to make the, so the next time it sees it, it can make antibodies rapidly and prevent high viral titers from occuring, and the immune system doesn't have to "throw everything" at it, because it already has the 'correct' pathway to respond primed.
This is what vaccination (all types) is supposed to do- give a bit of something that confers the 'correct' antibody response. One new way proven to do this fairly effectively is the use of mRNA. The difference is that one (mRNA) is meant for the healthy prior to infection to get their immune response "primed" and the other (mAb) is meant to basically act as if you have the ability to produce the 'mature' antibody. The big difference is that with the infusion, you have mature antibodies and no way to produce them (until your body goes through the process of learning to do this which is, again, a several week long process).

quote:

---

While we are @ it, same for the mRNA once a breakthrough case hits & high viral loads are detected.. what's different for that patients success vs the non vaxxed?

---

I don't know that we have good data on that. It may exist, but it's not something I've even looked for. I'll still recommend mAb therapy for the vaccinated at high-risk for the time being. This may eventually change, but that's what everyone around me is doing, and we are having good success with it with no real known contraindications to it or significant adverse effects from it.
Anecdotally, I still haven't seen a severe case in a vaccinated individual. The unvaccinated cohort in the hospital getting sick seems to be getting younger (though almost always still fairly large, BMI 35+ seems to be where the big "break point" is from experience, but if someone pointed out a different number based on larger observation, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a little higher or a little lower). They also tend to be relatively less severe - way more need o2, but way fewer get intubated and die. They seem to stick around needing more o2 than I can safely give outside of the hospital for longer, too. Everything I read seems to point towards 50+ having more "breakthrough" cases. I don't know if my patients are just lucky, just haven't gotten it yet, or if the "breakthrough" cases tend to wind up in the bigger centers anyway (though this isn't likely because transferring patients has been essentially impossible for about a month now).


Sorry for the delayed response. I'm not sure if I answered exactly what you were asking, but I think that should be a pretty easy-to-read summary of how it's supposed to work that shouldn't tax a brain or insult intelligence.

1) no
2) There are 9 separate "breaks" in the above post, but I'm far too lazy to indent when writing on a message boards
3) I've never been accused of being a good or effective writer.