It's remarkable how a non-randomized study of Hydroxychloroquine is anathema, yet a non-randomized study of Remdesivir that's paid for by its manufacturer and written up by that manufacturer's employee is not. Hmm, I wonder why that is. To top it off, it might actually have the same QT prolongation issues, because some other antivirals have them.
That said, politics aside, I hope it works far beyond our wildest expectations so fewer people die.
I'd like to know if there was any evidence or indication of the value of HQNN before a certain president started spouting it. AFAIK the only reason we're talking about it is because he did. If that's so then there's no reason to pick HQNN as being special over any other drug. I suppose there's that very dodgy french study, perhaps that's what started it all off.
Basically exactly the same kind of "evidence" as what we have now for remdesivir. Some patients got better while on it, but because there was no control arm we don't know whether they'd do worse (or better) without the drug.
Virologists generally agree that it is a plausible drug to treat COVID-19, but will quickly point out that efficacy is unproven and we need to wait for better studies.
Also, a couple of doctors who are regarded as "cranks" started applying it early in the disease and presumably had success with. Trump picked up on that, so now a lot of people have reason to hate on it. Trump poisoned the well.
No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. However, that also means if these drugs work, but only in the early stages, then we won't find out any time soon.
One drug has turned out to be mostly ineffective and in some cases dangerous, people have died. Another one seems to work okay-ish in a huge coordinated experiment.
It's stabilized under the current shelter in place regime, which will almost certainly have to be lifted at least partially for economic-political reasons.
When that happens my guess is there will be new waves of illness.
I think this makes the mistake of thinking there is such a thing as a global infection rate. There are instead a couple of hundred separate epidemics, each with its own R0 and trajectory.
It’s also dangerously wrong, but human nature, to look at the current state of epidemics and project their future state. Epidemics that have been suppressed rather than extinguished resemble unstable explosives. Just because they’re sitting there nicely today doesn’t mean they won’t explode 3 seconds from now.
The places that are growing are too early in the curve to move that needle. The developing world got it first because people travel more, but the virus has reached poor countries and they won't have as many options.
Like the article says, there have been some hopeful anecdotes, but that is a long way from an effective cure and rigorous testing phase. Aka to early to tell.
Readit News
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22783363
That said, politics aside, I hope it works far beyond our wildest expectations so fewer people die.
Also, a couple of doctors who are regarded as "cranks" started applying it early in the disease and presumably had success with. Trump picked up on that, so now a lot of people have reason to hate on it. Trump poisoned the well.
No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. However, that also means if these drugs work, but only in the early stages, then we won't find out any time soon.
One drug has turned out to be mostly ineffective and in some cases dangerous, people have died. Another one seems to work okay-ish in a huge coordinated experiment.
I don't see where politics come into this.
> people have died
Citation needed. And no, aquarium cleaner dude is not what I mean by "citation".
Short answer, because Politicians publicly pushed Hydroxychloroquine. You should know that.
> the firm has set an “ambitious goal” of producing more than 500,000 treatment courses by October, and 1m by the end of the year
So no. Even if this is a cure, the pandemic gets worse before it gets better.
If 80% of those infected do not need treatment at all, that amount of courses may well be sufficient, or close to it.
When that happens my guess is there will be new waves of illness.
It’s also dangerously wrong, but human nature, to look at the current state of epidemics and project their future state. Epidemics that have been suppressed rather than extinguished resemble unstable explosives. Just because they’re sitting there nicely today doesn’t mean they won’t explode 3 seconds from now.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment