Suppose it doesn’t work at all. But you have $50, and it doesn’t really have bad side effects. Isn’t it worth the bet?
There are only 3 reasons to not allow this:
1. It actually has negative impacts, and the possibility of success is not high enough to overcome those negative impacts.
2. In states where they are running trials, you might screw up the trial if you are supposed to be a control but you are taking the meds.
3. The meds are actually out of stock, and your taking them prevents the studies going forward, or keeps people who need them for life-saving treatment from getting that treatment.
THe 3rd seems to be the focus right now; and in Nevada, the governor decided he couldn’t trust doctors not to hoard the medicine, so he shut it down. But the companies are producing millions more of this, so I don’t see that supply will be a problem, unless it is found to work and they make it the primary treatment.
BTW, there’s one other issue; we have a half-dozen ready or almost-ready possible treatments, plus there’s a group who every day is generating a new list of current drugs that show in analysis that they might work off-label against this drug (an interesting field of study, the use computer simulations to search through the database of all drugs, and check each against the known pathology, and get probability hits. There were 10 very promising drugs that they have sent out to actual studies).
So, it might be that this drug “works”, in that maybe it saves half the deaths, and cuts hospital time to 6 days.
But maybe one of the other drugs will save 90% of the deaths, and cut hospital time to 3 days. We want to find that out, not just jump on the first partial cure.
BUT, and this is important — this PARTICULAR combination of drugs is cheap, and easily manufactured, and already out for decades. We know how they work, we just don’t know what the best mix might be, and whether to add zinc or not, or what side effects to watch for in combinations. So it makes sense to deploy this as a temporary measure while we are doing actual studies.
The issue in Nevada, if you read the release closely, is that the grubernator is "worried" that lupus and rheumatoid patients who already take the medicine will have difficulty finding a supply if the hoarders get there first.
It's a commonly available drug. As the Cheeze-Its commercial says - "Get your own box. We'll make more".
Re 2). In states where they are running trials, you might screw up the trial if you are supposed to be a control but you are taking the meds.
At this point it’s unethical to run a placebo controlled study. There is more than enough evidence that severe patients should get some sort of anti-viral—either a chloroquine, lopinivar plus rotonivir ( standard protocol in China) or remdisivir.
Real problem is that chloroquine in vitro studies have shown its even more effective as prophylaxis so the authorities are trying to preserve it for severe cases.
Priority is to use currently limited supply to treat those in danger of death. As supply allows, we should treat positives because in addition to reducing likelihood of hospitalization, it radically shortens the time that you’re infectious. Third would be prophylaxis for high risk patients and essential healthcare workers.
...But maybe one of the other drugs will save 90% of the deaths, and cut hospital time to 3 days. We want to find that out, not just jump on the first partial cure....
depends on where on your clock your infection/life is..do you have time to wait?