So I'm not sure I see why you'd call my summary "false", but as far as I can tell we agree on the major points
-
-
The useful thing I learnt from @jwato_watson's thread that I didn't pick up in the original article was the Boulware et al stuides being very low powered.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ellis2013nz @GidMK and
I sort of agree with you both - I think the article seems factually correct (as far as I know), but I would have liked more emphasis on "definitely not a miracle cure but there are still some things where it *might* work" (I know this was in there, so perhaps it is a tone).
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But it's not one trial. There are several trials of prophylaxis, most recently the Spanish one, that suggest quite convincingly that the benefits, if any, are minute https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.20.20157651v1 …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'm not sure I agree with that at all. A reduction in proportion of PCR-positive cases of less than 3.5% would be pretty small
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Sure, but at low rates of transmission. Also, the study was really quite large - >2,000 people - so presumably to find a smaller effect with low rates of transmission you'd need tens of thousands at a minimum
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
At a certain point, given the ever-increasingly lower prior probability that there is an effect to find, you have to balance the likelihood that HCQ doesn't work prophylactically against the enormous expense of running such a trial
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.