Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data...
by rory on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @12:01PM
(#28617940)
This is true, but just because the two are on opposite sides of the culture war doesn't mean they're medically mutually exclusive.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data...
by simpleguitar on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @02:50PM
(#28620194)
Actually, it does.
The only reason one would be taking iver prophylactically, is because one wasn't vaccinated. And the only reason to take iver after covid symptoms develop is because you didn't take the vaccine.
If one was vaccinated and are feeling sick enough to take iver, she would be better off with oxygen and hospital SOC.
Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data...
by rory on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @04:14PM
(#28621174)
It seems like you're just saying you don't believe ivermectin works? That's fine and likely correct, but logically it's completely unrelated to its mutual exclusivity to the vaccine.
For instance, if you get tetanus after having the vaccine, you'll still be given antibiotics. If someday ivermectin is proven to have a positive effect against Covid, we won't withhold it from vaccinated patients.
Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data...
by bongcloud420 on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @08:48PM
(#28623980)
The vaccines are not sterilizing, which means they do not stop you from catching or spreading the virus. It seems to me that any drug that is actually a prophylactic for covid would be a massive improvement.
Re:Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data...
by mint2 on Wednesday September 22, 2021 @04:36PM
(#28621440)
I didn’t realize the lottery gave out different odds based on political affiliation.
Do republicans or liberals get better probabilities? Or is it only for Covid related odds?