Comment by notacoward | Hacker News Reader

Comment by notacoward | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> That's not what anyone is suggesting

...and yet that's what people are doing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/07/teen-w...

> The drug is well-known

So are its risks.

> there's the potential for a large success rate

Every treatment has some potential. Funny how there's been a chorus of "eVerY drUg hAS rIsks" to make HCQ seem unexceptional in that regard (even though most drugs don't carry disk of heart problems and blindness) while clinging to the idea that its potential is exceptional. In the case of HCQ for COVID-19 we don't need to guess about potential, because there have been many studies by now and we have empirical evidence of weak effect. It shouldn't be ignored, but it should be far from the top of anyone's list either. It's only getting attention at all because of who keeps touting it.

You talk about being disingenuous, but I think the disingenuous behavior in this thread is the extreme cherry-picking of favorable results while ignoring less favorable results and risks.

> > That's not what anyone is suggesting

> ...and yet that's what people are doing.

> Her mother, a nurse, and a man identified in the report as her father, a physician assistant, gave the girl azithromycin...The report does not state if the girl had a prescription for either drug.

You need a better source. There was supervision in that case. Sadly, the girl was apparently part of the ~75-80% that don't survive COVID-19, even with azithromycin & hydroxychloroquine.

> So are its risks.

And that means its risks can be addressed and quantified.

> extreme cherry-picking

Two points. 1. A great example of cherry picking is the single instance of mortality associated with using azithromycin that you gave in your source. 2. The issue of degree of efficacy is secondary to the fact that it's potential for efficacy is being hidden and labeled disinformation, when the drug should be investigated for its potential to save lives.

> You need a better source. There was supervision in that case

You're being disingenuous again. Read the article. She was given the drugs by her parents, who were not authorized to prescribe them or supervise their use on their own. The outcome is not the point. The point is the lack of proper supervision. The outcome could have been different, and it would still be wrong for people to be using HCQ other than in a controlled trial ... but that's exactly what hype like yours leads to.

You're deriving way too much from an uninformative article. "Given the drugs by her parents" doesn't mean they were prescribed by her parents. Did the article say whether there was no doctor involved?

Also. The girl had an autoimmune disorder, for which the same drugs are commonly used. Did the article happen to say whether or not she was already on the drugs?

The article also says nothing about whether the drugs had anything to do with her demise. It sure does imply that, though.

This is a cherry picked article.

Love when people who get all their news from mainstream media news articles become experts at

Reply on news.ycombinator.com