6 ms·

> If true, it changes virtually nothing about our current situation. Honest question: why? (Note: my background includes pharmacology, so I am more intereste

> If true, it changes virtually nothing about our current situation. Honest question: why? (Note: my background includes pharmacology, so I am more interested in pharmacological options rather than vaccines)

mlyle 6y ago
If we end up with a treatment that swings infection fatality rate from 0.6% to 0.55% and reduces hospital stay time by 15%-- and HCQ probably does less than this-- the public policy choices we'd want to make are basically identical. Peak hospital load for a wave is lowered by much less than 15%; body count is just about as bad. Yes, everyone who has their life saved by this treatment is happy, and it's worth chasing small improvements on the margin... but... (It's worth noting that the (very) little evidence from controlled trials that we have leans more in the direction of harm than benefit, too. But the same argument holds for e.g. remdesivir where we do have some decent evidence).
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  > If we end up with a treatment that swings infection fatality rate from 0.6% to 0.55% and reduces hospital stay time by 15% Unsure about fatality (the data is a statistically insignificant trend), but the NIAID trial preliminary data points that remedesivir does cut recovery time by 30% (11 days vs 14 days) according to their interim report. I have to dig up the exact definition. Yes, not HCQ, but data on drugs exist. Too bad it's probably one of the hardest to manufacture.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    OK, but this has nothing to do with what I said. Even cutting recovery time by 22% doesn't lower peak ICU usage very much-- less than 22% because there's still the effect of the exponential peak. The point is it doesn't affect policy / the fundamentals of the situation in any way. It's something that individual patients are happy and thankful for, but the overall societal situation is the same. A treatment that reduced the chance of ending up in ICU by 50% would, but this isn't enough to move the needle.

mlyle 6y ago

If we end up with a treatment that swings infection fatality rate from 0.6% to 0.55% and reduces hospital stay time by 15%-- and HCQ probably does less than this-- the public policy choices we'd want to make are basically identical. Peak hospital load for a wave is lowered by much less than 15%; body count is just about as bad. Yes, everyone who has their life saved by this treatment is happy, and it's worth chasing small improvements on the margin... but... (It's worth noting that the (very) little evidence from controlled trials that we have leans more in the direction of harm than benefit, too. But the same argument holds for e.g. remdesivir where we do have some decent evidence).

lbeltrame 6y ago
> If we end up with a treatment that swings infection fatality rate from 0.6% to 0.55% and reduces hospital stay time by 15% Unsure about fatality (the data is a statistically insignificant trend), but the NIAID trial preliminary data points that remedesivir does cut recovery time by 30% (11 days vs 14 days) according to their interim report. I have to dig up the exact definition. Yes, not HCQ, but data on drugs exist. Too bad it's probably one of the hardest to manufacture.
- mlyle 6y ago
  OK, but this has nothing to do with what I said. Even cutting recovery time by 22% doesn't lower peak ICU usage very much-- less than 22% because there's still the effect of the exponential peak. The point is it doesn't affect policy / the fundamentals of the situation in any way. It's something that individual patients are happy and thankful for, but the overall societal situation is the same. A treatment that reduced the chance of ending up in ICU by 50% would, but this isn't enough to move the needle.