Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Believe There's Finally A Cure For The Common Cold (dailymail.co.uk)

schwit1 writes: After decades of research, the fabled cure for the common cold could be on its way in the form of a nasal spray called SynGEM, the brainchild of a Dutch biotechnology company. After successful tests on mice and rats (yes, they get colds too), 36 human volunteers at London's Imperial College are now trying out the spray.
While colds can be caused by hundreds of different viruses, just three viruses are responsible for 80% of them -- and yet colds are responsible for 40% of the sick days taken in the U.S., according to another article, as well as 75 million doctor visits (costing $7.7 billion) every year, plus another $2.9 billion for cold medications. One experimental medicine professor at London's Imperial College London has spent the last 30 years researching colds and flu, and though a cure has never been found, he now tells the Daily Mail, "I think we are on the verge of it. I really do."

4 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. About to be excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until I saw TFA is from the DailyMail

  2. "Sick" days by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe the common cold is used as a method 40% of the time to get a sick day, but that doesn't mean that its actually the cause.

  3. Is balanced by bigbang137 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But it gets balanced out by the assholes who show up to work sick with a cold, soon contaminating their coworkers.

  4. Re:Sickdays==Lossofprofits, can't have those! by Paul+Carver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He may not fully understand why it seems bad, but it is part of a trend to value human life as well as almost everything else in terms of money alone.

    Are you aware that the sole purpose of money, the only reason it exists, is to enable people to assign values to things? If we didn't care about comparing values of arbitrary combinations of things we could just use a barter system. The wealthy could get just as wealthy owning land and machinery and livestock and fuel, we'd just have a much harder time comparing how wealthy they are if nobody assigned numbers in fungible units to those things.

    Complaining about people measuring value in money is like complaining about measuring sound volume in decibels. The sound's not going to get any louder or quieter just because you''re squeamish about assigning a numeric value to it's current volume.

    Maybe you don't want to know the value of a human life. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to even think about the question of whether every human life has precisely equal value in quantifiable units. Maybe you hope to never allow yourself to think about how much money you'd be willing to spend to extend a stranger's life by sixty seconds.

    But that doesn't mean that "money" isn't the appropriate class of units in which to measure "value" and if life has any value at all then money is the correct thing to use to estimate that value in units that can be compared against other things of value. Decibels for sound volume, kilograms (or other mass units) for mass, meters (or other length units) for distance, and dollars (or other monetary units) for value.

    Just because you'd prefer not to know what the number is, doesn't mean that it can't be measured. Nor does your preference not to know affect which units are appropriate for quantifying the measurement.