Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not at all a fair assessment of what happened. I won't blame specific groups (there is plenty of fault to go around), but it wasn't the administration that made things partisan there.
The President literally called it a "Democrat hoax" How is it not the administration's doing then?
Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
41–50 of 123 posts
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#42I live in an island where during a viral outbreak some were advocating for chloroquine against the Chikungunya virus. The initial in-vitro tests were promising but it turns out during human trials it has a reverse effect and delayed adaptive immune responses (1). It's sad to see scientific method destroyed by politics and social networks. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977261/
> It's sad to see scientific method destroyed by politics and social networks.
If there were such a thing as phase 5 trials with at least a million participants, it would be completely insane to use anything that had only undergone phase 3 clinical trials. People should make rational decisions based on the best evidence that's available at the time. Whether or not it's rational to take HCQ, there's nothing magical about phase 3 studies.
Antiviral drugs only really work in the first couple days of the illness, and with this disease you usually don't get symptoms until at least day 5. And in the current environment, no one is getting put on prescription antivirals until at least day 10, and usually even later. To me this raises the question of whether clinical trials are really even possible right now in the first place, or whether making decisions based off in vitro data is the best we can do for right now.
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not at all a fair assessment of what happened. I won't blame specific groups (there is plenty of fault to go around), but it wasn't the administration that made things partisan there.
The President literally called it a "Democrat hoax" How is it not the administration's doing then?
The president called his alleged mishandling of the situation a "Democratic hoax". He didn't call COVID-19 a hoax or the treatment we're discussing
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#44Based on this and all the other anecdotal studies plus all the people treated with it for other ailments, it seems fairly certain that at a minimum this treatment is not causing more harm. Given that plus all the indications that it seems to help to some degree, we should be pursuing production scale of these drugs aggressively. It is very unfortunate that the media politicized this treatment in such a way that now e…
To use a very celtic phrase, it's a shame Trump is such a gobshite he couldn't help himself but to promote this as a miracle cure before the science was settled.
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
He heard something about these two drugs, and without any scientific evidence he announced it, causing a panic-grab for the drugs. Unfortunately even the CDC was saying we don't have evidence supporting it.
That's valid criticism, but it has nothing to do with partisanship.
The President shouldn't be recommending unproven drugs, he should be communicating what we know and what to do now.
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#46I wish the current U.S. administration hadn't tried to turn this into a partisan issue.
It absolutely did not. The press did. The mainstream US media has become a one-sided partisan cheerleading squad for the Democrats, and most Americans are sick of it. We'll see how that works out in November.
Let's not jump the gun yet - not even been peer-reviewed.
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did they turn it into a partisan issue? Trump announced in a press conference that hydroxychoroquine held promise as a potential therapy based on anecdotal evidence being shared by physicians in Asia and Europe. Everyone, Democrats, the media, and individuals jumped on him as promoting snake oil and having no basis for his claims. It was barely news when he announced it. Some of the same evidence he was referenci…
He heard something about these two drugs, and without any scientific evidence he announced it, causing a panic-grab for the drugs. Unfortunately even the CDC was saying we don't have evidence supporting it.
Yeah, I think it's not quite correct to say he made it partisan but he absolutely politicised the science here.
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#48I wish the current U.S. administration hadn't tried to turn this into a partisan issue.
This really sounds like your bias showing. The media made this partisan, not the administration.
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#49Sample size seems small. Is this adequately powered given the effect size?
Power wouldn't be a concern here. Power is simply the probability that, if a statistically significant difference exists, the study correctly conclude there is a difference. Essentially, if a study comes back failing to reject the null hypothesis ("there is no benefit to hydroxychloroquine"), then you might be concerned about power ("perhaps there is a benefit and our sample size was too small to detect it"). There may be other statistical points to be raised about the results of this study, but given that the null was rejected ("there was evidence of an effect of HCQ"), power wouldn't be among them.
Here the null hypothesis is that hydroxychloroquine isn't any better than not receiving anything. If the study
Re: Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19: a randomized trial
#50"Key findings: For the 62 COVID-19 patients, 46.8% (29 of 62) were male and 53.2% (33 of 62) were female, the mean age was 44.7 (15.3) years. No difference in the age and sex distribution between the control group and the HCQ group. But for TTCR, the body temperature recovery time and the cough remission time were significantly shortened in the HCQ treatment group. Besides, a larger proportion of patients with improved pneumonia in the HCQ treatment group (80.6%, 25 of 32) compared with the control group (54.8%, 17 of 32). Notably, all 4 patients progressed to severe illness that occurred in the control group. However, there were 2 patients with mild adverse reactions in the HCQ treatment group. Significance: Among patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could significantly shorten TTCR and promote the absorption of pneumonia."