4 ms·
I 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,
by jamesblonde 7y ago
I 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.