I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

sibeen said:

I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

It’s not unusual for rival opinions to coexist especially when a situation is evolving and emerging rapidly. It’s hardly surprising that, in a world with tens of thousands of reputable epidemiologists, that there will be reputable epidemiologists with minority opinions. I’m not an epidemiologist, and it would be worthless for me to try to offer an independent opinion on this topic.

So all I can say:

• is that the mainstream view is that there are significant risks associated with this treatment for people in the highest Covid-19 risk groups and that, further, the evidence of survivorhood benefit based on the largest studies is ambiguous, so (the view says) the net effect of its broad application is negative

and

• small but significant minority views among reputed experts differ from the above opinion.

dv said:

sibeen said:

I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

It’s not unusual for rival opinions to coexist especially when a situation is evolving and emerging rapidly. It’s hardly surprising that, in a world with tens of thousands of reputable epidemiologists, that there will be reputable epidemiologists with minority opinions. I’m not an epidemiologist, and it would be worthless for me to try to offer an independent opinion on this topic.

So all I can say:

• is that the mainstream view is that there are significant risks associated with this treatment for people in the highest Covid-19 risk groups and that, further, the evidence of survivorhood benefit based on the largest studies is ambiguous, so (the view says) the net effect of its broad application is negative

and

• small but significant minority views among reputed experts differ from the above opinion.
  

Mrs rb takes this drug but is regularly monitored.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

It’s not unusual for rival opinions to coexist especially when a situation is evolving and emerging rapidly. It’s hardly surprising that, in a world with tens of thousands of reputable epidemiologists, that there will be reputable epidemiologists with minority opinions. I’m not an epidemiologist, and it would be worthless for me to try to offer an independent opinion on this topic.

So all I can say:

• is that the mainstream view is that there are significant risks associated with this treatment for people in the highest Covid-19 risk groups and that, further, the evidence of survivorhood benefit based on the largest studies is ambiguous, so (the view says) the net effect of its broad application is negative

and

• small but significant minority views among reputed experts differ from the above opinion.
  

Mrs rb takes this drug but is regularly monitored.

What’s her condition?

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

It’s not unusual for rival opinions to coexist especially when a situation is evolving and emerging rapidly. It’s hardly surprising that, in a world with tens of thousands of reputable epidemiologists, that there will be reputable epidemiologists with minority opinions. I’m not an epidemiologist, and it would be worthless for me to try to offer an independent opinion on this topic.

So all I can say:

• is that the mainstream view is that there are significant risks associated with this treatment for people in the highest Covid-19 risk groups and that, further, the evidence of survivorhood benefit based on the largest studies is ambiguous, so (the view says) the net effect of its broad application is negative

and

• small but significant minority views among reputed experts differ from the above opinion.
  

Mrs rb takes this drug but is regularly monitored.

What’s her condition?

Non-hodgkins lymphoma.

probably some hint of the problem in defeating, as used in the title, you could probably gauge some statistically indicated benefit by comparing various groups, but can’t know exactly of whatever single example that the benefit was from use of the drug, add that there maybe adverse effects from the drug, which may be difficult to separate from immune system damage, by the immune system, or more generally somewhat enhanced by complex chemical insult. So there’s a dimension of chemical insult potentially.

so where there’s possible effects from chemical insult you’d expect medicine to proceed with caution

back to the use of the word defeating, does a person speculatively apply that to an individual example that used the drug and recovered, then apply it as a more general cure likely to help most people with infection (or with rapidly declining health from the infection)

so, i’d guess the problem is the medical people can’t measure and know in advance what the chemical insult from using the drug might be, in any particular individual, they can’t really give reliable advice even of a statistical nature that’d represent the possible risks

sibeen said:

I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

Seems like Combining anecdata and those shitty biased studies Done earlier (there’s been 11) to come to a chosen conclusion. So most everyone else anyway…

sibeen said:

I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

It can’t hurt.

So yes, we should.

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

It can’t hurt.

So yes, we should.

The majority opinion, based on the largest trials, is that it does hurt.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

I’ll admit I’m totally confused about this topic. Here’s an article from 10 days ago suggesting that we should be using this drug, and the author doesn’t appear to be a wackjob.

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

It can’t hurt.

So yes, we should.

The majority opinion, based on the largest trials, is that it does hurt.

Arts said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

It can’t hurt.

So yes, we should.

The majority opinion, based on the largest trials, is that it does hurt.

But my bloke was a full professor, none of this associate shit.