3 ms·
With all the known cases (e.g. 100k in the US) and about 0.5-1% taking HCQ continuously already for lupus and other diseases, if these people are underrepresent
by beagle3 7y ago
With all the known cases (e.g. 100k in the US) and about 0.5-1% taking HCQ continuously already for lupus and other diseases, if these people are underrepresented, we have a big clue that it works, almost to the point of proof (need to show that it's not the underlying condition that stops the virus, a-la sickle cell anemia vs malaria). If they are equally represented, it's discouraging, but not proof that it doesn't work (again because of underlying being a confounder).
This information should readily be available to the CDC or whoever else is tracking the cases. What am I missing? Why do you have to wait for double-blind trials?
- hprotagonist 7y agohipaa, nonstandard data recording systems, time, confounds of preexisting medical conditions, scattershot testing, and the overall saturation of the healthcare system are going to make that signal more or less invisible.
- beagle3 7y agoWe are talking about the confirmed positive cases, these people are all potential spreaders and are supposed to be closely monitored. This is a standard CDC playbook (lots of people I’ll, find out what’s common to them). The list you gave, if true, is total incompetence of e CDC to a level which has never been demonstrated before - in fact, the CDC has generally done well with their playbook even if it was a couple of weeks late (and we’re 10 weeks since I heard from a friend who works with the CDC that they’re watching it)