re: So now that we have a bonafide cure for this Corona virus can we open everything back up?

quote:

---

I agree, but that wouldn't stop the medical malpractice/personal injury lawyers from filing suit, especially if all the positive talk on the internet about hydroxychloroquine doesn't pan out. "Did you or your loved suffer an injury or die from taking the drug hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 despite it not being approved for this by the FDA nor recommended by the CDC? Call1-800-COVID19 for a free consultation."

---

We've been giving this out to the military for a very long time so they don't catch shite like malaria.

Some of yall really want this thing to be worse than it is.

Cure it tomorrow. March Madness begins Friday!

Does spread even matter if there’s a cheap at-home option to treat/cure the virus?

quote:

---

within six days using this med in combination with erythromycin, and COVID was no longer detected in 100% of the patients

---

I haven't seen this. I have seen it referenced in conjunction with azithromycin to reduce detectable virus in around 95% of cases. Here is a medscape (free but you have to register) publication on it. It's a few days old updated and republished today.


There's some promise.


It's not a "bona-fide cure"
It's efficacy in the critically ill isn't established with good data at this time.
We don't currently have good data on the caseload to begin with, and it's currently believed that 80% who contract it will do fine with no treatment at all.



This isn't something that everyone should go out and start just yet.

quote:

---

Hopeful Doc

---

Solid points. Definitely need more data but no one is gonna stop me from getting prematurely excited about this

quote:

---

Hopeful Doc

---

You might be a better fit in the gloom and doom stickied thread. There are very numerous stories from a variety of countries now using it with great success so far.

We're not living in the same world from 2 weeks ago, we're under a federally declared emergency in the entire country. If it even sniffs being promising, they're gonna approve it for treatment, removing the FDA red tape.

quote:

---

Going to be a long 18mts for you

---

I hope it is... working from home is great so far. Honestly I believe I was more productive. Better check myself and not forget that I only need to out perform everyone else, which is primarily boomers. Never give 100%, only ever give 110% of what everyone else does. Kind of sucks sometimes though, when it leaves you with 50% downtime some days. Ah well, just means I can actually take a nap now that I'm at home, or work on something around the house.

Understand your labeling Info, thanks

quote:

---

If I were diagnosed with COVID19 tomorrow, I wouldn't take it.

---

In your opinion what would be the down side of trying it?

Basically the people that will likely recover on their own don't need to take it. But it very well could, and kinda does, help people that could otherwise die from corona. So those people should probably take it.

quote:

---

Basically the people that will likely recover on their own don't need to take it

---

The study linked here compares the "literature" rate of how "contagious" people are to those getting the med at day 6, and at day 6 in the study, 25% are still contagious.
They state they are collecting swabs in a hospital setting but aren't clear if they are referencing the lab or the patients
They do not cite the "literature" rate of how "contagious" people are in other studies.
One guy in this thread even confused which second medication was added (though he did get that it was a macrolide) and misrepresented the "clearance" rate of the virus, stating it cured 100% of people, when in reality, based on the link above, an unlisted number that isn't higher than 24 people got both drugs, and their rate of positivity was still 5% at day 6.


This isn't even close to proof or good evidence.

quote:

---

But it very well could, and kinda does, help people that could otherwise die from corona.

---

There are some other data out there that show some promise. I wouldn't bash a coworker for giving nor holding it at this point. There isn't a ton of good data for its use.

And as linked in the medscape article above (again, free to get into but you need to make an account- it's not a true 'paywall'), they excluded tons of the really critically ill patients from treatment with it because it interacts with a lot of drugs they were taking. Other investigative therapies show promise and safety, as well.



My point isn't "this isn't going to work."
My point isn't "no one should take this medication"
My point isn't "you should be near death before considering this medication"




My point is that no one who treats patients for a living thinks this is a bonafide cure with phenomenal data to support its use at this time
My point is that the folks in here saying something to the effect of "why doesn't everyone take it and we go back to normal life" don't understand just how little support there is for that idea, that the drug does have very real and severe side effects, and that the few trials that are out there really aren't a rock-solid foundation for worldwide adoption at this time.




I'm still hopeful, I promise.
I'm not as doom-and-gloom as some are reading me to be.