4 ms·

Yale Professor of Epidemiology claims HCQ "key to defeating COVID-19"

25 points by ops_operator 6y ago

1f60c 6y ago
I suggest changing the title to something like: Yale professor of epidemiology claims hydroxychloroquine "key to defeating COVID-19"
- ops_operator 6y ago
  Done. I usually try to avoid editorializing titles after repeated scoldings but I think this is appropriate.
- schlipity 6y ago
  Isn't it something more like: I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
api 6y ago
Hydroxychloroquine is only controversial because Trump championed it. Otherwise it would be a detail of interest only to doctors treating COVID and researchers evaluating the success of these treatments. Political hyper-polarization and social media amplification of divisive content to drive "engagement" is making us all collectively lose our damn minds. If Trump says the sky is blue, his followers mindlessly believe it and everyone else will mindlessly decide the sky must instead be green. If Trump says the sky is green, his followers will mindlessly believe it and everyone else will mindlessly revert to thinking the sky is blue. The effect of a personality like Trump and how people react to him is quite possibly worse than Trump himself. Either HCQ works or it doesn't. Deciding that and deciding how best to use it if it does work is a job for scientists and doctors. If you are not a scientist, doctor, or otherwise guided by real data that you are qualified to evaluate, your opinion on this issue is not valid and you need to shut up. What Trump or some other media whoring ass clown does or does not believe is irrelevant and will probably change next week anyway. Neither Trump nor his detractors have a valid opinion on this issue (unless they are actual professionals). /rant over
- wycy 6y ago
  I disagree. I think the anti-Trump crowd would've happily been on board with HCQ if Trump had said it was helpful and then scientific studies then also concluded it was helpful and that was the end of it. Instead, the FDA publicly retracted it's authorization for the use of HCQ and said it did more harm than good, and so public sentiment solidified behind the idea that it was stupid all along. If the FDA hadn't done that and the treatment continued to prove effective, I think we would all generally be on board with it. There are a lot of ways in which it turns out anti-Trumpers are exactly the same as Trump supporters, but the anti-science bent isn't one of them.
  - ops_operator 6y ago
    The treatment is continuing to prove effective when administered in the correct dosages at the appropriate times and in conjunction with Zinc and Azithromycin. Unfortunately a lot of people were biased against it precisely because Trump supported it. The studies showing it didn't work or was dangerous were poorly designed but people happily accepted their results because they made Trump look like a fool. It's time we put politics aside and reverse course on HCQ.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > Unfortunately a lot of people were biased against it precisely because Trump supported it. If someone says "you should take this", based on “[they] feel good about it. That’s all it is, just a feeling, you know, smart guy. [They] feel good about it.”, with no strong medical support, then rejecting the drug is the proper course of action. The medical community can continue to perform tests, and if there later is support for the drug, then policies can change. But that doesn't alter the fact that rejecting the drug was the correct policy.
      - ops_operator 6y ago
        Except that's not "all it is". Trump only said it should be taken based on research that had been done showing it may be effective, research which has been replicated in numerous studies in numerous countries. Subsequent poorly designed studies got bad results precisely because they were poorly designed, yet they continue to influence attitudes on HCQ treatment.
ops_operator 6y ago
For the record, this absolutely had the requisite level of engagement for the front page, but mysteriously languished under new.
- bE9a3S5So8igd3 6y ago
  The great thing about subscribing to HN via RSS is that you can see all the content that made it to the front page (as this post did), and was subsequently censored by leftist definitely-not-fascists
- LyndsySimon 6y ago
  I use hckrnews.com as my “front end” for HN, so this doesn’t happen for me - it shows submissions in chronological order.
lc0_stein 6y ago
Does anyone know if there any reasonably effective medications, yet (with sources)? Plasma therapy is the only majorly effective therapy I am aware of, at present. Would be interesting to read more on any promising treatments (aside from the Oxford vaccine success story).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  I've heard Remdesivir has some major positive effects... like cutting hospital stays by 20% or something like that, and mortality by a decent percent. But it probably needs some additional parts to a 'cocktail' to bring more deaths down closer to 0. I think we could probably get it closer to 10-20% of current death rates w/ the right treatments, but that takes time/studies/etc... I mean HIV while no vaccine is available they've pretty much cut back on death w/ azt/other combo's of drugs. But it wasn't built in a day, I hope they do get treatments coming soon though, that also address long-term effects of covid and prevent some of those... cause that's my biggest worry, how this affects us all over time.
giardini 6y ago
Take a look at these plots: https://c19study.com https://c19study.com

25 points by ops_operator 6y ago

I suggest changing the title to something like: Yale professor of epidemiology claims hydroxychloroquine "key to defeating COVID-19"

ops_operator 6y ago
Done. I usually try to avoid editorializing titles after repeated scoldings but I think this is appropriate.
schlipity 6y ago
Isn't it something more like: I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

api 6y ago

Hydroxychloroquine is only controversial because Trump championed it. Otherwise it would be a detail of interest only to doctors treating COVID and researchers evaluating the success of these treatments. Political hyper-polarization and social media amplification of divisive content to drive "engagement" is making us all collectively lose our damn minds. If Trump says the sky is blue, his followers mindlessly believe it and everyone else will mindlessly decide the sky must instead be green. If Trump says the sky is green, his followers will mindlessly believe it and everyone else will mindlessly revert to thinking the sky is blue. The effect of a personality like Trump and how people react to him is quite possibly worse than Trump himself. Either HCQ works or it doesn't. Deciding that and deciding how best to use it if it does work is a job for scientists and doctors. If you are not a scientist, doctor, or otherwise guided by real data that you are qualified to evaluate, your opinion on this issue is not valid and you need to shut up. What Trump or some other media whoring ass clown does or does not believe is irrelevant and will probably change next week anyway. Neither Trump nor his detractors have a valid opinion on this issue (unless they are actual professionals). /rant over

wycy 6y ago
I disagree. I think the anti-Trump crowd would've happily been on board with HCQ if Trump had said it was helpful and then scientific studies then also concluded it was helpful and that was the end of it. Instead, the FDA publicly retracted it's authorization for the use of HCQ and said it did more harm than good, and so public sentiment solidified behind the idea that it was stupid all along. If the FDA hadn't done that and the treatment continued to prove effective, I think we would all generally be on board with it. There are a lot of ways in which it turns out anti-Trumpers are exactly the same as Trump supporters, but the anti-science bent isn't one of them.
- ops_operator 6y ago
  The treatment is continuing to prove effective when administered in the correct dosages at the appropriate times and in conjunction with Zinc and Azithromycin. Unfortunately a lot of people were biased against it precisely because Trump supported it. The studies showing it didn't work or was dangerous were poorly designed but people happily accepted their results because they made Trump look like a fool. It's time we put politics aside and reverse course on HCQ.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > Unfortunately a lot of people were biased against it precisely because Trump supported it. If someone says "you should take this", based on “[they] feel good about it. That’s all it is, just a feeling, you know, smart guy. [They] feel good about it.”, with no strong medical support, then rejecting the drug is the proper course of action. The medical community can continue to perform tests, and if there later is support for the drug, then policies can change. But that doesn't alter the fact that rejecting the drug was the correct policy.
    - ops_operator 6y ago
      Except that's not "all it is". Trump only said it should be taken based on research that had been done showing it may be effective, research which has been replicated in numerous studies in numerous countries. Subsequent poorly designed studies got bad results precisely because they were poorly designed, yet they continue to influence attitudes on HCQ treatment.

ops_operator 6y ago

For the record, this absolutely had the requisite level of engagement for the front page, but mysteriously languished under new.

bE9a3S5So8igd3 6y ago
The great thing about subscribing to HN via RSS is that you can see all the content that made it to the front page (as this post did), and was subsequently censored by leftist definitely-not-fascists
LyndsySimon 6y ago
I use hckrnews.com as my “front end” for HN, so this doesn’t happen for me - it shows submissions in chronological order.

lc0_stein 6y ago

Does anyone know if there any reasonably effective medications, yet (with sources)? Plasma therapy is the only majorly effective therapy I am aware of, at present. Would be interesting to read more on any promising treatments (aside from the Oxford vaccine success story).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gremlinsinc 6y ago
I've heard Remdesivir has some major positive effects... like cutting hospital stays by 20% or something like that, and mortality by a decent percent. But it probably needs some additional parts to a 'cocktail' to bring more deaths down closer to 0. I think we could probably get it closer to 10-20% of current death rates w/ the right treatments, but that takes time/studies/etc... I mean HIV while no vaccine is available they've pretty much cut back on death w/ azt/other combo's of drugs. But it wasn't built in a day, I hope they do get treatments coming soon though, that also address long-term effects of covid and prevent some of those... cause that's my biggest worry, how this affects us all over time.

giardini 6y ago

Take a look at these plots: https://c19study.com https://c19study.com