It may not. But the more information, the better.
Iām puzzled that you do not understand his argument.
1 Like
The more useful the information the better. That would include statistical analyses.
2 Likes
Okay, but from Watanabeās re-analysis of the Boulware study, there is good reason to believe that breaking it down to the day could be very useful:
From what I can see, all it is showing is that the same percentage of people get sick in both the treatment and control groups. The only difference is there is a slight delay in getting sick in the treated group. If HCQ is being touted as preventing infection then the only numbers that matter is how many people get infected, not how long it takes for them to show symptoms.
2 Likes
Then I donāt think you are seeing very clearly. Participants who are treated within the first two days have a very large reduction in those who exhibit symptoms at all. There is nothing about them exhibiting symptoms later.
Looking at Table 2 from the paper, the Day 1 groups are as follows:
HCQ group: 77 patients, 5 developed symptoms
Placebo group: 63 patients, 8 developed symptoms
That looks like a tiny effect, if there is one at all.
In HCQ group 6.5% develop symptoms.
In Placebo group 12.7% develop symptoms.
I wouldnāt call that tiny.
When you look at the actual numbers, it is tiny. A difference of just 2 or 3 outcomes in each group would make them nearly equal.
1 Like
Right, because we have small sample sizes.
1 Like
I think you and @T_aquaticus have gone through this over and over. Would you be willing to accept @Bilbo that the Boulware study does not provide strong evidence for post-exposure prophylaxis?
Right ā which means we know almost nothing about what the actual effect is, if any.
3 Likes
No. I think the Watanbe re-analysis is very suggestive that early HCQ for post-exposure prophylaxis is very helpful. I hope somebody compares the data of the Mitja (Barcelona) study, to see if the pattern continues.
Which is why comparing the data in the Mitja (Barcelona) study would be helpful.
Ah, well then I think further discourse with you on these topics is pointless for now.
2 Likes
I get the impression that you think I am being unreasonable about something.
I would like to emphasize that I am a liberal, anti-Trump Democrat. I think the evidence shows that HCQ can save many lives if used early, and I think saving lives is more important. I wish Trump had never mentioned HCQ. And Iāve been afraid that if it was used widely and worked, that it would ensure that he won re-election, which I think would be a very bad thing. But I think it is clear at this point that Trump wonāt push for it to be used. So no worries there. But if Dr. Risch and others are correct, that means many more people will die needlessly. But I donāt think there is anything I or anyone else can do to change that, now. So the question of whether HCQ is effective against Covid-19 is merely an intellectual one, that may never be known.
Why do you accept his opinion over the opinion of numerous and better qualified experts?
2 Likes
Because I think his arguments are far superior to theirs.
Majority opinion never means diddly squat to me.
By the way, if you were a good scientist, you would want to see Mitjaās data broken down by day. You would also want to know when the nursing home residents got treated. [content removed by moderator]
Fair enough. I just hope you realize that many many experts think otherwise.
I did see them. As I stated earlier, just 2 or 3 changes in outcome in each group would have evened the difference between the groups. If there HCQ is making a different it is an extremely small one, if there is any effect to begin with. What you need to explain is why 5 people in the treated group developed symptoms. If HCQ is this miracle drug, why are people still getting sick at a rate that is nearly the same as placebo?
2 Likes