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

Chloroquine, past and present

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#121

Post by m0zg »

aazaa wrote: post #97

Only one clinical study has been published on chloroquine (by a French group), and the results are lackluster. No patient was cleared of virus after six days using hydroxychloroquine alone. A tiny fraction of patients were cleared in 4 days using an adjunct therapy (azithromycin). The study itself has issues, and it's not even clear whether it will clear peer review. The President is doing something very dangerous he…

> The President is doing something very dangerous

And if he didn't do what he did, you'd be saying the same thing once hundreds of people start dying per day because there's not enough chloroquine available. How do you know it's "hype"? Because orange man bad? It has shown effectiveness against SARS previously. It's been available for 50+ years and doctors are familiar with its side effects and safety profile. The Chinese list it in their official treatment guidelines right next to antivirals. It's also being used in France and Italy. Sure, the study produced in the last 2 weeks in France was not very rigorous, but it's not the only evidence of efficacy.

Could you quarantine your partisanship for a while? Maybe order it to shelter in place until, say, July?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#122

Post by waynecochran »

axguscbklp wrote: post #72

It seems to me that we should immediately move to massively increase production of hydroxychloroquine. If it turns out to be part of a solution, great. If not, I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the total resources dedicated to the pandemic would have been used up by the effort. There is no time to take things slowly in our situation. In any case, from what I've read on places like r/medicine, many people who…

> If this drug isn’t useful, then sending hundreds of millions of people out to swallow all of it that they can find will be a massive waste of time and money, and will actively harm people besides.

I don't think folks are reading the whole article.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#123

Post by gpm »

wolco wrote: post #106
_red wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Lets stay home instead. For a couple of weeks, fine. However on the other end of this spectrum is "Millions starve". At some point we need to ask is that fair to the youth? (note: I'm an old fart)

The recovering youth are getting breathing problems that aren't going away as well. It would be in their interest not to get it. It's also resetting our global warming clock. Something youth were keen about getting the world to do. If they can't handle staying at home for an extended time then global warming might not be that important after all.

This isn't resetting the global warming clock. Atmospheric CO2 is still going up not down. It's a temporary and small reduction in CO2 output coupled with a much more severe and much longer term reduction in scientific output that might actually solve global warming, and a much longer term and much more severe economic recession that limits our options to (further) hurt the economy to switch to greener means of energy production.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#124

Post by fspeech »

As non-specific antivirals the benefits of these drugs are most likely at disease onset or as preventives. A trial has started in the US for people with known exposure: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04308668?term=hydroxy...

Note the dosage being trialed is quite high. Definitely not something to do without proper medical supervision.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#125

Post by gridlockd »

wolco wrote: post #106
_red wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Lets stay home instead. For a couple of weeks, fine. However on the other end of this spectrum is "Millions starve". At some point we need to ask is that fair to the youth? (note: I'm an old fart)

The recovering youth are getting breathing problems that aren't going away as well. It would be in their interest not to get it. It's also resetting our global warming clock. Something youth were keen about getting the world to do. If they can't handle staying at home for an extended time then global warming might not be that important after all.

Aren't virologists predicting that 60-70% are going to get it, no matter what? What is the "extended time" that you are talking about?

Close to half of COVID infections result not even in a cough. Going by the mostly elderly population on the Diamond Princess, mortality with proper treatment is going to be significantly lower than 1%. Flatten the curve? Sure, but we can't be locking down the entire country indefinitely.

The youth already begrudge the elderly, locking them down for months will make them wish they were dead. Remember how a year felt like an eternity when you were 16?

Also, most youth don't care about global warming either. They're just virtue signaling. It really isn't that important, if they understood what they would have to give up on to stop it, they would embrace it and look forward to spring break in North Dakota.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#126

Post by easytiger »

guiriduro wrote: post #48

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

No. Because that vast majority of cases are mold or asymptomatic.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#127

Post by axguscbklp »

waynecochran wrote: post #122
axguscbklp wrote: post #72

It seems to me that we should immediately move to massively increase production of hydroxychloroquine. If it turns out to be part of a solution, great. If not, I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the total resources dedicated to the pandemic would have been used up by the effort. There is no time to take things slowly in our situation. In any case, from what I've read on places like r/medicine, many people who…

> If this drug isn’t useful, then sending hundreds of millions of people out to swallow all of it that they can find will be a massive waste of time and money, and will actively harm people besides. I don't think folks are reading the whole article.

I'm not suggesting immediately starting to dose millions of people with it. I'm suggesting massively ramping up production so that if it turns out to be useful, we can at that point immediately start dosing millions of people with it.

I think it likely that the cost of massively increasing hydroxychloroquine production would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total resources being spent on tackling the crisis. So even if the drug turns out to not be effective, the attempt to mass-produce it would still have been a rational gamble.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#128

Post by cm2187 »

gnulinux wrote: post #108
_red wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Lets stay home instead. For a couple of weeks, fine. However on the other end of this spectrum is "Millions starve". At some point we need to ask is that fair to the youth? (note: I'm an old fart)

Youth also doesn't want to deal with this disease. I'm 23 y.o., healthy as far as I know, but I still don't want to catch this disease. Why spend 2 weeks on the bed dealing with the worst flu, risk getting hospitalized? After all, even young patients can be hospitalized, even though fatality rate is lower. I vote everyone stay home for the time being.

Fine. But just be aware you may pay it with two years of unemployment. Or rather someone less qualified and educated.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#129

Post by DataWorker »

gpm wrote: post #123
wolco wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recovering youth are getting breathing problems that aren't going away as well. It would be in their interest not to get it. It's also resetting our global warming clock. Something youth were keen about getting the world to do. If they can't handle staying at home for an extended time then global warming might not be that important after all.

This isn't resetting the global warming clock. Atmospheric CO2 is still going up not down. It's a temporary and small reduction in CO2 output coupled with a much more severe and much longer term reduction in scientific output that might actually solve global warming, and a much longer term and much more severe economic recession that limits our options to (further) hurt the economy to switch to greener means of energ…

Agree. This will ultimately be horrible for the environment. Environmental regulations will fall by the wayside and look at the price of oil.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#130

Post by aazaa »

m0zg wrote: post #121
aazaa wrote: post #97

Only one clinical study has been published on chloroquine (by a French group), and the results are lackluster. No patient was cleared of virus after six days using hydroxychloroquine alone. A tiny fraction of patients were cleared in 4 days using an adjunct therapy (azithromycin). The study itself has issues, and it's not even clear whether it will clear peer review. The President is doing something very dangerous he…

> The President is doing something very dangerous And if he didn't do what he did, you'd be saying the same thing once hundreds of people start dying per day because there's not enough chloroquine available. How do you know it's "hype"? Because orange man bad? It has shown effectiveness against SARS previously. It's been available for 50+ years and doctors are familiar with its side effects and safety profile. The Ch…

I would say the same thing regardless of the man on the podium. You're the one bringing partisanship into this.

It's hype because nothing has been demonstrated yet using practices that have been worked out through a hundred years of painful trial and error. It's hype because he's saying he thinks it will work when he has no data to support that conclusion. It's hype because as the president must surely be aware, Americans are scared right now, and with good reason. To continue to double down on a "feel" in the current environment is hype.

The study from France, with its many flaws, is the only one that has been published. The "guidance" from the Chinese authorities is suspect to say the least.

Post reply on HN