So what would you do for treatment? I assume we can agree there isn't time for a typical trial, and who knows how long it will be before we have an actual vaccine?
Apologies if you've covered earlier, I've been spending most of my tmmac time in the covid stock market think tank thread.
My empiric treatment in the face of a lack of data does not justify a a national campaign overstating science by a politician. To be clear there's about four or five drugs with the similar level of evidence as hydroxychloroquine that would be worth trying in the medical surgical patient. I would try any of them including hydroxychloroquine, depending on patient co-morbidities. There are also developing interventions for critical patients where none of these seem to have any effect and the patient is more likely to have reasons I can't use some of these especially hydroxychloroquine. Unfortunately the best data for critical patients so far is serum antibodies from recovered patients. Trump's efforts to push hydroxychloroquine are in the absence of pushing an antibody serum campaign so that when you end up in the ICU I actually have something to treat you with. There's a lack of data here as well but there is some. And I can't study until you get me antibodies. And I can't do empiric treatment until you give me antibodies. So those goals align. Where are my coordinated serum antibody collection promotion at the same level as hydroxychloroquine?
To comment on your statement, yes this is the time for studies. Studies come in lots of flavors and we regularly release early data with trends as things come along. There's no reason that can't be happening right now. We just aren't coordinating parallel efforts very well. I don't need FDA authorization which is the lengthy process. I just need data on efficacy. The safety profile is pretty well established and I don't need it to be FDA approved for covid19.
Let me explain my frustration...
What's something that you know really well?
Let's just say stocks because you and I have talked about that here. There's a stock that goes down. You know that stock is undervalued. you do the math and you're aware that that stock is almost assuredly 10% undervalued. You know that if you buy that there is about a 75% sure that you're going to get a 10% gain in a relatively short period. You should buy that stock. You should tell people that they can probably get 10% out of buying that stock with pretty little risk. They probably shouldn't take their entire retirement account and purchase nothing but that stock. there are other stocks. You're aware that other ones will probably go up 10% and there are some that you're waiting on data from quarterlies, but they have even higher likelihood of working because of their foundation but you're just waiting some data. In the meantime you should move on this because it's right there. You should also be looking at those other stocks and maybe buying some of them as well because you can get some diversification and they're all about the same risk with about the same gain expected.
Now right next to you is a guy that has a much bigger microphone than you. He starts telling everybody that the same stock is going to shoot the moon. That stock is the golden stock. If you buy that you barely need to buy anything else. That stock isn't going up 10% but it's going up 100%. And it's not a 75%. There's no way you can lose. This thing's 99%, nay 99.9%! Now he never said 100% but that's the implication this thing is going to shoot the moon. He's bought in and you should buy in too.
The media picks up on this and amplifies the tone. professional investors all agree hey that's a good stock. They try to tell their clients that this is a good stock to buy but it's being overhyped. Buy some but don't go crazy here. This isn't a guaranteed thing and while you'll probably make some money You're not going to retire off of this. You're going to need other stocks. Also your stock analysis is based on older reports and you haven't seen the new quarterly. You cautiously tell your friends to buy the stock because historically there's some reason to believe it might be a good one. But you need that new quarterly report to really feel strongly. Now imagine every time you try to explain that the response is essentially, "got it!!! So the big microphone guy is right!!! This is a great stock!!! The best stock. If I buy this stock I'm done. My retirement planning is over.". And if the quarterly report comes out and shows the stock is 15% instead of 10%, The big microphone guy will scream about how he was so right and knew more than you. And everybody will agree. See we knew way early that this was a perfect stock!
That's hydroxychloroquine right now in the stupidest analogy I could ever come up with to discuss medicine lol.
@Evil Cucknievel
@sparkuri Bill Gates is studying plaquenil in an 'accelerator trial' to determine efficacy.
