21 votes

Trump says he is taking hydroxychloroquine to protect against coronavirus, dismissing safety concerns

20 comments

  1. [11]
    skybrian
    Link
    It's quite the stunt, but I wonder how risky it is considering that if he had any heart problems they would probably know? I doubt many people can evaluate this one without bias.

    It's quite the stunt, but I wonder how risky it is considering that if he had any heart problems they would probably know? I doubt many people can evaluate this one without bias.

    5 votes
    1. [10]
      spctrvl
      Link Parent
      I doubt he's actually taking it. Even if he's not just cynically lying about it, I can't imagine white house medical staff would just let him poison himself rather than give him a placebo.

      I doubt he's actually taking it. Even if he's not just cynically lying about it, I can't imagine white house medical staff would just let him poison himself rather than give him a placebo.

      16 votes
      1. [9]
        skybrian
        Link Parent
        Considering that there are people taking this as medicine for other conditions, where do you get "poison?" I suppose like with all medicine, you can say "the dose makes the poison" which suggests...

        Considering that there are people taking this as medicine for other conditions, where do you get "poison?" I suppose like with all medicine, you can say "the dose makes the poison" which suggests a strategy of giving a smaller dose.

        5 votes
        1. [4]
          sqew
          Link Parent
          My memory is that even at normal doses, hydroxychloroquine can have some nasty side affects, especially long term. So while I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's poison, I'd definitely agree that...

          My memory is that even at normal doses, hydroxychloroquine can have some nasty side affects, especially long term. So while I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's poison, I'd definitely agree that it's crazy for him to take it if he doesn't need it.

          9 votes
          1. [3]
            patience_limited
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            My experience is, horrific nausea and moderate diarrhea for the first couple of weeks of hydroxychloroquine. I can't think of a more deserving recipient, moreso since I haven't been able to get my...

            My experience is, horrific nausea and moderate diarrhea for the first couple of weeks of hydroxychloroquine. I can't think of a more deserving recipient, moreso since I haven't been able to get my RA prescription refilled for over a month and it's starting to be noticeable.

            As to long term side effects, there's a risk of blindness, and some people suffer liver or kidney damage. I never had signs of trouble - serious side effects are rare in otherwise healthy people at standard doses, which is why it was widely used for malaria prophylaxis.

            Purported treatment for COVID-19 uses excessive doses in people who are already in badly compromised health; whatever they're using for prevention may not be all that risky.

            16 votes
            1. [2]
              NaraVara
              Link Parent
              The man eats a diet of big mac meals. I think that's just his normal routine. Side effects are pretty uneven though. I just get mild gastritis and weird dreams (probably due to the gastritis). The...

              My experience is, horrific nausea and moderate diarrhea for the first couple of weeks of hydroxychloroquine.

              The man eats a diet of big mac meals. I think that's just his normal routine.

              Side effects are pretty uneven though. I just get mild gastritis and weird dreams (probably due to the gastritis).

              The big health risks have been people taking it in unapproved was, like eating fish-tank cleaning tablets.

              1. patience_limited
                Link Parent
                Chloroquine (whether or not formulated for fish tanks) is much more toxic than the hydroxylated version. The therapeutic dose is only half the potentially lethal amount, and it definitely...

                Chloroquine (whether or not formulated for fish tanks) is much more toxic than the hydroxylated version. The therapeutic dose is only half the potentially lethal amount, and it definitely shouldn't be taken without careful medical supervision.

                HCQ isn't ideal, either - it's just the least bad medication option for many people with autoimmune diseases. Honestly, immunology is one of the worst understood fields of medicine. Even the most effective tools, like vaccines, are still mostly black boxes. The mechanism of action for how chloroquine and derivatives inhibit cytokine release is just now being explored [PDF warning]. Better targeted drugs that don't knock out whole swathes of immune response (unlike steroids and biologics) should be on the horizon.

                4 votes
        2. krg
          Link Parent
          Here’s the FDA F.A.Q. for hydroxychloroquine with regards to it being a COVID-19 preventative measure. The 4th question is key. It could possibly prevent the disease, but they don’t really know...

          Here’s the FDA F.A.Q. for hydroxychloroquine with regards to it being a COVID-19 preventative measure. The 4th question is key. It could possibly prevent the disease, but they don’t really know and it’s not worth the risk for most everyone. Trump is the PotUS and is probably monitored pretty often, so I doubt it’s as risky for him. If he is even taking it, that is.

          6 votes
        3. [3]
          babypuncher
          Link Parent
          The drug has side effects, some of which can be potentially lethal if the patient has heart problems. This is why it's normally only given to people who actually need it to treat something worse....

          The drug has side effects, some of which can be potentially lethal if the patient has heart problems. This is why it's normally only given to people who actually need it to treat something worse. Trump is just taking it for funsies.

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            skybrian
            Link Parent
            Yes. I'm attempting to distinguish the risk for one person (is the President at risk from this) from risk for the population (which is different because they're not him). So, like, if there is a...

            Yes. I'm attempting to distinguish the risk for one person (is the President at risk from this) from risk for the population (which is different because they're not him).

            So, like, if there is a risk for sick people with heart problems, and he doesn't have heart problems, it seems unlikely that he's going to die from it?

            This sort of reasoning (but probably more sophisticated) is what a doctor would do. Presumably they've thought about this?

            Of course, the disturbing thing about this stunt is the "setting an example" part. A responsible leader would be saying that their doctor said it's okay for them, but you shouldn't try it at home. That is, if they announced it at all.

            1. babypuncher
              Link Parent
              He said in his announcement that his doctor did not recommend it, so it sounds like they are just giving it to him because he told them to and he's the POTUS. He probably won't die, but he's still...

              He said in his announcement that his doctor did not recommend it, so it sounds like they are just giving it to him because he told them to and he's the POTUS.

              He probably won't die, but he's still an idiot and setting a terrible example.

              2 votes
  2. [9]
    moocow1452
    Link
    Similar to how we were talking about an "Escalation" label for comments, I think that a "Jesus Freaking Christ, I can't, I just can't, I mean what the actual fuck?" label would be of use for...

    Similar to how we were talking about an "Escalation" label for comments, I think that a "Jesus Freaking Christ, I can't, I just can't, I mean what the actual fuck?" label would be of use for topics as a preemptive measure against natter and non constructive conversation.

    11 votes
    1. Omnicrola
      Link Parent
      Sooooo..... a "Trump Speaks Words" label?

      "Jesus Freaking Christ, I can't, I just can't, I mean what the actual fuck?" label

      Sooooo..... a "Trump Speaks Words" label?

      7 votes
    2. [7]
      aphoenix
      Link Parent
      We could shorten it to JFCICIJCIMWTAF and use that as a tag? This is about 90% joke but 10% suggesting we could use a tag for things like this, but maybe not JFCICIJCIMWTAF.

      We could shorten it to JFCICIJCIMWTAF and use that as a tag?

      This is about 90% joke but 10% suggesting we could use a tag for things like this, but maybe not JFCICIJCIMWTAF.

      5 votes
      1. [4]
        moocow1452
        Link Parent
        I was half considering putting an all block on "Donald Trump" tagged articles, but the whole geopolitically relevant issue presents a problem for blocking him in order to keep informed. Maybe...

        I was half considering putting an all block on "Donald Trump" tagged articles, but the whole geopolitically relevant issue presents a problem for blocking him in order to keep informed. Maybe "Trump Says Words" like @Omnicrola suggested or a more generic option for "too mindnumbing for rational conversation" but it seems like either of those would be redundant if the man's name keeps getting attached to "person said thing" stories.

        5 votes
        1. [2]
          patience_limited
          Link Parent
          The key here is that Trump and other authoritarian leaders use public outrage like a matador uses the cape to turn a bull's rush. This story was an un-ignorable distraction from Trump's most...

          The key here is that Trump and other authoritarian leaders use public outrage like a matador uses the cape to turn a bull's rush.

          This story was an un-ignorable distraction from Trump's most damaging recent actions (e.g. COVID-19 failures, firing the Inspector General investigating Saudi arms deals, expelling migrant children, destroying environmental protection, giving away public land to cronies, etc.).

          I'd settle for a generic "Outrageous!" label, so I can focus away from endless "flooding the zone with shit".

          4 votes
          1. moocow1452
            Link Parent
            I guess the issue is that all of this is very objective, people saying outrageous stuff, but it it's all politically relevant. Ideally, Tildes wouldn't become a gossip bar, but if it is contact...

            I guess the issue is that all of this is very objective, people saying outrageous stuff, but it it's all politically relevant. Ideally, Tildes wouldn't become a gossip bar, but if it is contact designed to provoke an emotional response, how do you deal?

            2 votes
      2. [2]
        Kuromantis
        Link Parent
        '??????????' Perhaps? '*sigh.*'?

        10% suggesting we could use a tag for things like this.

        '??????????' Perhaps? '*sigh.*'?

        2 votes
        1. moocow1452
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          @aphoenix, I'm roping you in to say that I'm not sure that we can come up with a term for politically relevant gossip that provokes a frustrated emotional response and keep it fun without it...

          @aphoenix, I'm roping you in to say that I'm not sure that we can come up with a term for politically relevant gossip that provokes a frustrated emotional response and keep it fun without it becoming the new nomenclature argument. (Tildos 4 lyfe!)

          Although, politically relevant gossip may be a relevant term on its own that could outlive any one politician. How to determine if such a statement is both politically relevant and gossip would probably be a painpoint, but I think there is something there.

          3 votes