3 ms·
3% 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.
by rscho 7y ago
3% 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.