As someone who is currently active duty Navy, I really appreciate what SecDef Mark Esper did today. He will likely get fired for it, but he made it very clear that this Dept. of Defense will NOT use active duty forces on its own citizens.
On a Covid related note, hopefully this large scale study can finally close the book on Hydroxychloroquine as a "preventative treatment"...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/03/hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trial-results/
Its a good study. I've been monitoring the Lancet study (which this article mentioned), as its been a debacle. There have been irregularities about the data and the source. Some facts (like the number of deaths, doses of medication) were verifiably incorrect from at least one hospital in Australia (several hospitals were collaborating, but some of them hadn't given permission to collect data, supposedly Its just bizarre issues with that study and the private company who were responsible for collecting the data.) The short version is that the study initially raised concerns about cardiac side effects, but the data those concerns were based on looks shady. I think there have been enough questions about the methods now, that this Lancet study won't ever be treated as meaningful even if they do address the concerns.
They were saying in an 'observational' study (this is not a randomized, blinded study, to remove biases) that the people with Covid-19 who got hydroxychloriquine were more likely to die than those who didn't get it. But there is an obvious bias that people who are sicker and more likely to die from the way the Covid is progressing are more likely to have been prescribed hydroxychloroquine. The design is a significant limitation, independent of the weirdness with the data reports.
But the U of Minnesota study from NEJM is a solid study design and statistically meaningful. Plus its looking at the prophylaxis question, which is important. There may still be a role where hydroxychloroquine DOES have a benefit, such as in a more severely sick patient, etc. There are other studies looking at those situations. But so far, nothing too persuasive has been published.
Three thoughts from the NEJM study:
1) Hydroxychloroquine doesn't seem worthwhile as a preventive therapy. I wouldn't prescribe it or take it for that purpose based on this data.
2) The hand-wringing about cardiac side effects looks to be just that. It can be used safely when prescribed by gate-keepers who are familiar with how to use it. They didn't have an issue with cardiac side effects in this study. (The Lancet study, as I mentioned, raises a question about this, but I'd put more weight on the study that doesn't have all the weird problems.
3) Remdisivir looks like the much more promising treatment option. The data coming out show that it makes a difference in a way that wasn't demonstrated with the hydroxychloriquine +/- azithromycin.