This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.
I am a physician and a scientist at the University of Virginia. I care for patients and conduct research to find better ways to diagnose and treat infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Here I'm sharing what is known about which treatments work, and which don't, for the new coronavirus infection.
Keep in mind that this field of medicine is rapidly evolving as our understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus improves. So what I am writing today may change within days or weeks.
Below are the treatments that have been tried and for which we have the best knowledge.
Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine – no evidence they work
There are three randomized controlled trials of hydroxychloroquine, all of which have failed to prove or disprove a beneficial or harmful effect on COVID-19 clinical course or clearance of virus. Given this current lack of evidence, these drugs, which normally are used to treat arthritis, should only be used within the context of a controlled clinical trial.
Lopinavir/ritonavir – not helpful
The drug Lopinavir is an inhibitor of an enzyme called HIV protease which is involved in the production of viral particles. Protease inhibitors for HIV were revolutionary, leading to our current ability to effectively treat HIV. Lopinavir also can inhibit enzymes that perform similar functions as the HIV protease in the SARS and MERS coronaviruses. Ritonavir increases the level of Lopinavir in the blood so the lopinavir/ritonavir combination was tested in a randomized controlled clinical trial for COVID-19.
Unfortunately, there was no impact on the levels of virus in the throat or duration of viral shedding, nor did patients' clinical course or survival change. There therefore is no role for lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19.
Steroids – yes for almost all COVID-19 patients
When a synthetic steroid hormone, called dexamethasone, was given to patients with COVID-19 the drug decreased 28-day mortality by 17% and hastened hospital discharge.
This work was performed in a randomized and controlled clinical trial of over 6,000 patients, and while not replicated in another study or yet peer reviewed, is certainly enough evidence to recommend its use.
Tocilizumab – too early to judge
Tocilizumab is an antibody, that blocks a protein, called IL-6 receptor, from binding IL-6 and triggering inflammation. Levels of IL-6 are higher in many patients with COVID-19, and the immune system in general seems to be hyperactivated in those with the most severe disease. This leads many physicians and physicians to think that inhibiting the IL-6 receptor might protect patients from severe disease.
Tocilizumab is currently FDA approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and several other collagen-vascular diseases and for "cytokine storm" – a harmful overreaction of the immune system – that can be caused by certain types of cancer therapy and COVID-19.
A retrospective observational study found that COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of mechanical ventilation and death. But we lack a randomized controlled clinical trial so there is no way to ascertain if this apparent improvement was due to tocilizumab or from the imprecise nature of retrospective studies.
Convalescent plasma – too early to judge
Convalescent plasma, the liquid derived from blood after removing the white and red blood cells, contains antibodies from previous infections that the plasma donor had. This plasma has been used to prevent infectious diseases including pneumonia, tetanus, diphtheria, mumps and chickenpox for over a century. It is thought to benefit patients because antibodies from the plasma of survivors bind to and inactivate pathogens or their toxins of patients. Convalescent plasma has now been used in thousands of COVID-19 patients.
However, the only randomized clinical trial was small and included just 103 patients who received convalescent plasma 14 days after they became ill. There was no difference in the time to clinical improvement or mortality between those who did and did not receive treatment. The encouraging news was that there was a significant decrease in virus levels detected by PCR.
It is therefore too early to tell if this will be beneficial and controlled clinical trials are needed.
Remdesivir – yes, decreases hospital stay
Remdesivir is a drug that inhibits the coronavirus enzyme that makes copies of the viral RNA genome. It acts by causing premature stoppage or termination of the copying and ultimately blocks the virus from replicating.
Remdesivir treatment, especially for patients who required supplemental oxygen before they were placed on a ventilator reduced mortality and shortened the average recovery time from 15 to 11 days.
ACE inhibitors and ARBs – keep taking them
There was a concern that drugs called ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which are used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure, could increase levels of the ACE2 proteins, the receptor for SARS-CoV-2, on the surface of cells in the body. This would, physicians hypothesized, allow more entry points for the virus to infect cells and would therefore boost the severity of new coronavirus infections.
However, there is no evidence that this is the case. The American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America and the American College of Cardiology all recommend that patients continue to take these medications during the pandemic as they are beneficial in the treatment of high blood pressure and heart failure.
We have made amazing progress in the treatment of COVID-19. Two therapies – steroids and Remdesivir – have already been shown to help. Those who benefit from these treatments owe thanks to patients who volunteered to participate in controlled clinical trials, and the physicians and pharmaceutical companies that lead them.
William Petri is Professor of Medicine, University of Virginia
Man in oversized pants.Image via 
Weight loss drugs and tape measure.Image via 
FDA approved. 
A woman deprived of her sleep.Image via 
A Looney Tunes classic. 
Artist's rendering of a brain overlaid a woman's head.Image via 
Ultrasound of human baby.Image via 
IVF animated process.Image via 
A couple speaks with a fertility professional.Image via 
Love, Mom.Photo from Heidi Johnson 
A teen boy having a hard time. 
Why do some folks use social media but don't engage?
Psychologist says people who never comment on social media share these 5 positive traits
For over 20 years, social media has developed into a staple in many people’s day-to-day lives. Whether it’s to keep in communication with friends and family, following the thoughts of celebrities, or watching cat videos while sipping your morning coffee, there seem to be two types of social media users: commenters and lurkers.
The term “lurker” sounds equally mysterious and insidious, with some social media users writing them off as non-participants at best or voyeurs at worst. However, mindfulness expert Lachlan Brown believes these non-commenters have some very psychologically positive and healthy traits. Let’s take a look at how each one of these traits could be beneficial and see how fruitful lurking might be even though it can drive content creators crazy.
1. Cautious about vulnerability
Consciously or not, making a post online or commenting on one puts you and your words out there. It’s a statement that everyone can see, even if it’s as simple as clicking “like.” Doing so opens yourself up to judgment, with all the good, bad, and potential misinterpretation that comes with it. Non-commenters would rather not open themselves up to that.
These silent users are connected to a concept of self-protection by simply not engaging. By just scrolling past posts or just reading/watching them without commentary, they’re preventing themselves from any downsides of sharing an opinion such as rejection, misunderstanding, or embarrassment. They also have more control on how much of themselves they’re willing to reveal to the general public, and tend to be more open face-to-face or during one-on-one/one-on-few private chats or DMs. This can be seen as a healthy boundary and prevents unnecessary exposure.
Considering many comment sections, especially involving political topics, are meant to stir negative emotional responses to increase engagement, being extra mindful about where, when, and what you comment might not be a bad idea. They might not even take the engagement bait at all. Or if they see a friend of theirs post something vulnerable, they feel more motivated to engage with them personally one-on-one rather than use social media to publicly check in on them.
2. Analytical and reflective mindset
How many times have you gone onto Reddit, YouTube, or any other site and just skimmed past comments that are just different versions of “yes, and,” “no, but,” or “yes, but”? Or the ever insightful, formerly popular comment “First!” in a thread? These silent browsers lean against adding to such noise unless they have some valid and thoughtful contribution (if they bother to comment period).
These non-posters are likely wired on reflective thinking rather than their initial intuition. Not to say that all those who comment aren’t thoughtful, but many tend to react quickly and comment based on their initial feelings rather than absorbing the information, thinking it over, researching or testing their belief, and then posting it. For "lurkers," it could by their very nature to just do all of that and not post it at all, or share their thoughts and findings privately with a friend. All in all, it’s a preference of substance over speed.
3. High sense of self-awareness
Carried over from the first two listed traits, these silent social media users incorporate their concern over their vulnerability and their reflective mindset into digital self-awareness. They know what triggers responses out of them and what causes them to engage in impulsive behavior. It could be that they have engaged with a troll in the past and felt foolish. Or that they just felt sad after a post or got into an unnecessary argument that impacted them offline. By knowing themselves and seeing what’s being discussed, they choose to weigh their words carefully or just not participate at all. It’s a form of self-preservation through restraint.
4. Prefer to observe rather than perform
Some folks treat social media as information, entertainment, or a mix of both, and commenting can feel like they’re yelling at the TV, clapping alone in a movie theater when the credits roll, or yelling “That’s not true!” to a news anchor that will never hear them. But contrary to that, social media is a place where those yells, claps, and accusations can be seen and get a response. By its design, social media is considered by experts and the media as performative, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Taking all of the previously mentioned traits into account, one can see why they would prefer to “observe the play” rather than get up on the stage of Facebook or X.
On top of that, these non-commenters could be using social media differently than those who choose to fully engage with it. Using this type of navigation, there may be nothing for them to comment about. Some commenters are even vying for this for their mental health. There are articles about how to better curate your social media feeds and manipulate algorithms to create a better social media experience to avoid unnecessary conflict or mentally tiring debate.
If you go on a blocking spree on all of your accounts and just follow the posters that boost you, it could turn your social media into a nice part of your routine as you mainly engage with others face-to-face or privately. In terms of commenting, if your curated Instagram is just following cute dogs and all you have to offer for a comment is “cute dog,” you might just enjoy the picture and then move on with your day rather than join in the noise. These non-commenters aren’t in the show and they’re fine with it.
5. Less motivated by social validation
The last trait that Brown showcases is that social media users who browse without posting tend to be independent from external validation, at least online. Social media is built to grow through feedback loops such as awarding likes, shares, and reposts of your content along with notifications letting you know that a new person follows you or wants to connect. This can lead many people to connect their activity on social media with their sense of self worth, especially with adolescents who are still figuring out their place in the world and have still-developing brains.
Engaging in social media via likes, shares, comments, and posts rewards our brains by having them release dopamine, which makes us feel good and can easily become addictive. For whatever reason, non-commenters don’t rely on social media as a means to gauge their social capital or self worth. This doesn’t make them better than those who do. While some non-commenters could have healthier ways to boost their self worth or release dopamine into their systems, many get that validation from equally unhealthy sources offline. That said, many non-commenters’ silence could be a display of independence and self confidence.
Whether you frequently comment online or don’t, it’s good to understand why you do or don’t. Analyzing your habits can help you determine whether your online engagement is healthy, or needs to be tweaked. With that information, you can then create a healthy social media experience that works for you.