[Pearls Before Swine]

I don’t see the need for a conflict.

This medicine is for treatment; vaccine is for prevention.

Can’t we have both?

[Karl Spooner]

Can’t we have both?

Problem is if can you cure it cheap, how the hell can big pharma make billions off of a vaccine that nobody will want to take?

[coloradan]

This medicine is also preventative. (If it can halt an infection, it can prevent one from happening in the first place.) Look on line for maps which show where people have been dying of malaria and where they have been dying of COVID-19. The regions are almost perfectly complementary. The hypothesis is that in those places where malaria is rampant, people are routinely dosed with antimalarials, especially including chloroquine, and this greatly impedes infection by the coronavirus.

[rfp1234]

Whatever works best. Even antibodies injected directly into patients could be developed, which theoretically would bypass the traditional vaccination process.

I have faith in American ingenuity.

[353FMG]

How do we know the chloroquine does not provide prevention?

[MHGinTN]

Prophylactic use IS for prevention ... not referring to the stretchy tubes recommended for sexual activity.

[foundedonpurpose]

Where exactly is the conflict?

Just dealing with an easy cheap cure that has proven successful.

There is no vaccine!

[Wonder Warthog]

"This medicine is for treatment; vaccine is for prevention."

Same meds "may" also have a prophylactic effect in addition to curative. More extensive testing necessary to confirm. Curative effect is real and proven. That will buy time until a vaccine is perfected.

[Leep]

nope we have to shut America down. Meanwhile people are touchy germy money while going to the germy grocery stores.

[monocle]

Do you have any documentation that chloroquine is not effective in preventing the coronavirus?