Oh Charlie, –
“And regarding the ATS guidelines, you failed to note two things. First, you neglected the following:
For patients with COVID‐19 who are well‐enough to be managed as outpatients, we make no suggestion either for or against hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine). 18% for intervention, 36% no suggestion, and 46% against intervention.”
LOL!
You didn’t Mention it Either!
Your Post:
“Recommendation 1. Among patients who have been admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel recommends hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine in the context of a clinical trial. (Knowledge gap)
Recommendation 2. Among patients who have been admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel recommends hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine plus azithromycin only in the context of a clinical trial. (Knowledge gap)”
“You also failed to note that those recommendations are dated April 3 and do not reflect updated knowledge.”
Oh for sure – the IDSA guidelines on April 11 is Much Later than April 3.
LOL Again!
Here is a Much Newer Study than what IDSA GUIDELINES Were based on:
“In early April, Chinese scientists published a study looking at 62 patients with mild cases of Covid-19. Unlike the French trial, the study was randomized and the treatment and control groups were comparable. The study found a statistically significant difference in the time it took the two groups to recover, with patients who received HCQ showing shorter periods of fever and cough.”