I couldn’t disagree more with your take on this.
There is ZERO disappointment and ZERO significance to realizing a drug won’t actually prevent infection from a virus. What drug has ever done this for a virus?
This was never hoped or claimed for.
Someone touting this as a headline or some significant discovery is a bad joke.
It is such a ridiculous bar to set, I have to wonder if the study/article were paid for by the vaccine industry.
They pointedly avoided even looking at what the drug was hoped to do, and believed to do, reduce the severity of disease upon infection.
If a huge percent of people who take low dose HCQ once a week end up with asymptomatic infections instead of worse categories of severity, that is a huge benefit and not a disappointment in any way.
Yes people who are asymptomatic can still infect others, although they are much less infectious than worse cases (viral load). If it saves lots of lives among high risk individuals, that is the farthest thing possible from being a disappointment.
News is coming out now that the numbers of asymptomatic infections for C19 are far bigger than previously thought.
By the way if you are stationed in a place with risk of malaria they give you low dose once a week for prophylactic, not daily.
Same for c19, low dose once a week for prophylactic, high dose daily for acute/severe treatment (under close supervision with zinc/zpak)
RE: There is ZERO disappointment and ZERO significance to realizing a drug won’t actually prevent infection from a virus. What drug has ever done this for a virus?
This was never hoped or claimed for.
Well, then we better tell many Doctors and healthcare workers who are taking HCQ now as preventative to STOP as they are simply wasting their money and making the drug more scarce for patients who really need it.