3 ms·
Yes... well-studied does not mean without drawbacks. Right now on this day, OP is probably more likely to die from chloroquine administration than from the pan
by rscho 7y ago
Yes... well-studied does not mean without drawbacks.
Right now on this day, OP is probably more likely to die from chloroquine administration than from the pandemic.
- jamesblonde 7y agoI dont think chloroquine has 3% morbidity. And if you are a higher risk individual, the math towards chloroquine improve. By dosing in a controlled ramp-up way, you can better mitigate many known side effects such as psychosis - identify earlier and most cases resolve when treatment is ceased.
- rscho 7y ago3% is as good as a number drawn from a hat at this stage of the epidemic, be it drawn from Nature, Cell or whatever. Also, those 3% assume you are contaminated. You can't compare that to a short-to-medium term run of preventive chloroquine adminstration, which has a rather high incidence of minor side effects. You are statistically comparing oranges to apples. This behaviour increases your risk of hurting yourself by a large margin compared to simply following WHO recommendations.
- angry_octet 7y agoStatistically, population wide chloroquine prophylaxis would probably cause more problems than is warranted by the COVID-19 threat. Even if it works, and isn't just wishful thinking / propaganda.
- rscho 7y agoI agree.
- jamesblonde 7y agoI don't disagree with you, actually. Like I said, if you are in a high risk group, the math changes - but I agree that mass preventive chloroquine adminstration would not be a good idea. However, if there is a large outbreak, shortages of chloroquine or you have to wait days/weeks for your doctor to prescribe chloroquine - that is not a place i personally want to be. On another note, this is a nice thread helping me (and maybe others) inform them about side effects and efficacy of possible treatments.