3 ms·
> they say the data suggests that HCQ is protective. Only, I fail to see that the data does that. And their explicit claim is, which I specifically quoted dire
by acqq 6y ago
> they say the data suggests that HCQ is protective.
Only, I fail to see that the data does that. And their explicit claim is, which I specifically quoted directly from the paper:
"We were able to show that patients taking HCQ have had reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection"
It's not different than "there were more people believing in Santa Claus proportionally in those negatively tested, so that means that Santa Claus belief reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection."
It just doesn't.
Even if A is true, in such a construct B doesn't follow. Like it was already noted, those treated could have been also less willing to do risky things. Or it could have been a mere coincidence, like in the Santa Claus example.
- gridlockd 6y ago> It's not different than "there were more people believing in Santa Claus proportionally in those negatively tested, so that means that Santa Claus belief reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection." If people who believe in Santa Claus have a 0.5 hazard ratio of contracting HIV, that suggests that belief in Santa Claus is protective against HIV. If we flip "belief Santa Claus" for some random drug, it would be the same, you just couldn't obviously tell that it is implausible. Just because data suggests one thing or another doesn't mean that whatever the data suggests is true. It's still just a correlation, but you always start with a correlation. You're simply not used to the jargon but feel entitled to criticize the authors for just doing their work. Please don't do that.
- acqq 6y agoI claim that their statement "We were able to show that patients taking HCQ have had reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection" is not true. It's not jargon. It's a false statement given the data that they presented. To "show" that the "odds" are reduced compared to something they have to show the reasonable odds of that something. I don't see them showing that at all, or that their paper actually demonstrated "odds."
- gridlockd 6y agoI just realized you're the guy from the other thread. You have a rather hostile way of interpreting other people's writing. Please, consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity