Christophe wrote:So if we understand my brother-in-law well, Dr. Raoult also took a financial risk! Either he self-financed tonight he did not respect the official protocol (but that we already suspected ...)
What I understand is that your brother-in-law would have liked Dr Raoult to have more resources, to test more people (24, it's really a small sample).
Dr. Peronne's words were really very clumsy. I think everyone understood that there had been theft (the word theft, used by the journalist, had not been denied). In this case, there was only a movement of stock from the central pharmacy to the hospital pharmacies. There is nothing to make a dish of it. The problem is the lack of stocks; but the manufacturers are in action.
In short, this confirms to me in my idea that by being so suspicious of chloroquine, the government mainly wants to give itself time to rebuild sufficient stocks (and by taking the opportunity to do additional tests).
Next, the question that arises is chloroquine for all patients, or only for severe cases? For my part, I think it is better to reserve it for serious cases (except to pass to the systematic test).
Finally, even if it is effective, chloroquine will not necessarily treat everyone, it will be difficult to treat elderly patients and weakened by different pathologies.