
Yale Professor of Epidemiology claims HCQ "key to defeating COVID-19" - ops_operator
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535
======
1f60c
I suggest changing the title to something like:

    
    
      Yale professor of epidemiology claims hydroxychloroquine "key to defeating COVID-19"

~~~
ops_operator
Done. I usually try to avoid editorializing titles after repeated scoldings
but I think this is appropriate.

------
giardini
Take a look at these plots: [https://c19study.com](https://c19study.com)

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

~~~
bE9a3S5So8igd3
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

------
lc0_stein
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).

~~~
gremlinsinc
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.

