Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 247 posts

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#11

Post by rtpg »

blinkingled wrote: post #5

> In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. Is that really promising? Very close to margin of error if not within.

Dunno about the sample size, but sounds like "1/3rd of hospitalizations prevented" to me.

Though it's like... isn't the vaccine in the initial phases like "80+% of hospitalizations prevented"? I guess it's good to have all these options but would be nice to just get good vaccine coverage.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#12

Post by SkittyDog »

blinkingled wrote: post #5

> In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. Is that really promising? Very close to margin of error if not within.

16% > 11% represents a 31% decrease in the absolute number of hospitalizations. That's nearly a ONE THIRD improvement in the hospitalization rate. In places where hospitals are at or near capacity, that would make a huge difference.

Or were you trying to make a statement about the statistical validity of the result, because the outcomes differ by 5%? Because that's not how statistics work. A well constructed study of sufficient size can provide detect arbitrarily small differences in outcomes--you just need a bigger study size, the smaller the difference you want to detect. You would learn about this any 101-level statistics course, and a lot more useful information, too.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#13

Post by s5300 »

SkittyDog wrote: post #12
blinkingled wrote: post #5

> In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. Is that really promising? Very close to margin of error if not within.

16% > 11% represents a 31% decrease in the absolute number of hospitalizations. That's nearly a ONE THIRD improvement in the hospitalization rate. In places where hospitals are at or near capacity, that would make a huge difference. Or were you trying to make a statement about the statistical validity of the result, because the outcomes differ by 5%? Because that's not how statistics work. A well constructed study of…

IMO, one of the largest hurdles that modern society is going to have to overcome is the average person's understanding of large (or small) numbers and basic statistics.

I think a large issue within that hurdle is that a lot of people simply won't want to learn, or apply the knowledge after learning.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#14

Post by abecedarius »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #2

Sarcasm and hyperbole incoming but… Surely there could be no side effects of putting even more people on SSRIs! well how many more people you thinking? Covid-many .

IANAD but I'd expect taking it during an infection to have different risks from taking it over a long period or permanently.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#15

Post by m0zg »

I bet with crystal meth you won't even notice your COVID if you take enough of it. Not sure it's a worthwhile tradeoff though, though I'm sure "legalize everything" crowd would disagree. Taking SSRIs to very marginally reduce severity seems like an extremely dumb idea.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#16

Post by [deleted] »

SkittyDog wrote: post #12
blinkingled wrote: post #5

> In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. Is that really promising? Very close to margin of error if not within.

16% > 11% represents a 31% decrease in the absolute number of hospitalizations. That's nearly a ONE THIRD improvement in the hospitalization rate. In places where hospitals are at or near capacity, that would make a huge difference. Or were you trying to make a statement about the statistical validity of the result, because the outcomes differ by 5%? Because that's not how statistics work. A well constructed study of…

[deleted]

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#17

Post by z80x86 »

blinkingled wrote: post #5

> In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. Is that really promising? Very close to margin of error if not within.

> A cheap antidepressant reduced the need for hospitalization among high-risk adults with COVID-19 in a study hunting for existing drugs that could be repurposed to treat coronavirus.

You’re right to be suspicious; data dredging 101.

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#18

Post by SkittyDog »

s5300 wrote: post #13
SkittyDog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

16% > 11% represents a 31% decrease in the absolute number of hospitalizations. That's nearly a ONE THIRD improvement in the hospitalization rate. In places where hospitals are at or near capacity, that would make a huge difference. Or were you trying to make a statement about the statistical validity of the result, because the outcomes differ by 5%? Because that's not how statistics work. A well constructed study of…

IMO, one of the largest hurdles that modern society is going to have to overcome is the average person's understanding of large (or small) numbers and basic statistics. I think a large issue within that hurdle is that a lot of people simply won't want to learn, or apply the knowledge after learning.

And the funny thing is that the original commenter was looking at a trivial math problem. It wasn't even a question of statistical validity, it was just "What does it mean to compare percentages to each other?" That's grade-school mathematics.

I see this kind of error pretty frequently, and it's usually not a failure of mathematics... Most often, the person has some pre-existing negative emotional reaction to the stated conclusion, and their brain searches for something to criticize, in order to soothe those negative emotions.

I could only speculate as to why the original poster doesn't like hearing that an existing drug shows promise in treating COVID. Maybe they're a big Ivermectin booster, and they don't like the idea of another drug threatening their favorite?

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#19

Post by darkerside »

SkittyDog wrote: post #12
blinkingled wrote: post #5

> In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. Is that really promising? Very close to margin of error if not within.

16% > 11% represents a 31% decrease in the absolute number of hospitalizations. That's nearly a ONE THIRD improvement in the hospitalization rate. In places where hospitals are at or near capacity, that would make a huge difference. Or were you trying to make a statement about the statistical validity of the result, because the outcomes differ by 5%? Because that's not how statistics work. A well constructed study of…

N = 1500

One sample had 79-86 out of 750 hospitalized, and the other had 117-123 out of 750.

Does that seem sufficient to demonstrate statistical significance?

Edit: found the actual numbers in the study

79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756

Re: Cheap antidepressant shows promise treating early Covid-19

#20

Post by chmod600 »

SkittyDog wrote: post #12
blinkingled wrote: post #5

> In the group that took the drug, 11% needed hospitalization or an extended ER stay, compared to 16% of those on dummy pills. Is that really promising? Very close to margin of error if not within.

16% > 11% represents a 31% decrease in the absolute number of hospitalizations. That's nearly a ONE THIRD improvement in the hospitalization rate. In places where hospitals are at or near capacity, that would make a huge difference. Or were you trying to make a statement about the statistical validity of the result, because the outcomes differ by 5%? Because that's not how statistics work. A well constructed study of…

I don't know what the other post had in mind, but does seem like smaller effect sizes have a way of evaporating under scrutiny.

One third is pretty big when looking at it from a group perspective, but not really that big from a personal perspective.

If someone told me that taking a pill would reduce my chances of hospitalization by 5%, I would certainly be looking closely at the side effects.

Post reply on HN