1) Is a fair point. I think the writer of the article thought it implicit that the deaths were Covid, but because he didn't say it, it's a fair criticism; 2) This is unfair. The argument for HCQ is not that it prevents you from getting the disease at all -- it's that it make it less severe and less likely to be fatal. That would still make it very useful eve if it doesn't provide "100%" immunity; 3) Also not fair. Because of flaws in testing, percentages testing positive are not all that reliable, and the officers may not all have been tested anyway. Also, it is likely that in that large a group of officers, the distributions of who was infected likely were fairly evenly spread among the HCQ/non-HCQ groups.
In any case, I'm puzzled why the fact that other people are choosing to use HCQ seems to anger so may other people. Makes no sense as to why they'd really care. If someone else wants to take something that isn't doing them any good...so what?
RE: I’m puzzled why the fact that other people are choosing to use HCQ seems to anger so may other people.
We should know by now — IT’s ALL POLITICAL.
If Trump hadn’t mentioned it, and the press did not misrepresent him (e.g., he TOUTED IT AS A MAGIC BULLET), people would not be so worked up about it.
Now that Trump says he is taking it himself, expect the opposition to HCQ to be even more vehement.