3 ms·
This seems pretty inconclusive to me; as noted by other posters, we have no data from some of the trials in China and peer review of the potential patient benef
by hkt 7y ago
This seems pretty inconclusive to me; as noted by other posters, we have no data from some of the trials in China and peer review of the potential patient benefits hasn't materialised yet. Not trying to be a downer, but..
As an aside, the number of preppers and conspiracy theorists out on HN under stories like this is awful.
Remember, the world has vast infrastructures (CDC, WHO, NHS and equivalents) for working out the right course of action in these situations. They are staffed by professionals who understand how medicine and medical trials work, and how and when to deploy public health measures. I'm not saying their word is law, but hanging out on internet forums and then panic buying random stuff which isn't obviously efficacious off the back of a misunderstanding of the science is not personally or socially productive. At worst, it harms people in genuine need and stymies the ability of society to respond.
- sundbry 7y ago> random stuff which isn't obviously efficacious off the back of a misunderstanding of the science 1) It's not random stuff; there is associated research and a theory of operation how it counteracts the virus 2) Lacking obviousness? By the time the research is settled, you may be very sick already. 3) There is no misunderstanding, there is a risk analysis based on the currently available knowledge. Risk of chloroquine poisoning X probability of effectiveness X risk of acute viral infection. 4) Crowd-sourcing information has shown to be very effective in other times of crisis, a viral outbreak is no different. The internet is not a place for the information police. We share our ideas here.