3 ms·
Yes, they will, but protection is not the only way to solve a health problem, and if that protection comes at unacceptable cost, then it's possible for treatmen
by thu2111 5y ago
Yes, they will, but protection is not the only way to solve a health problem, and if that protection comes at unacceptable cost, then it's possible for treatment to be the better option.
It doesn't mean that's the case here, but it's certainly possible. The suppression of discussion of it means it's hard to really know.
- manwe150 5y agoRegardless, the link you sent says that treatment is not a sufficient option, and that protection (prophylaxis) is needed until vaccination.
- thu2111 5y agoHmm I'm not trying to be difficult but where does it say that? I can't find any language like that on the page. Rather the opposite, it says: "Special emphasis must be placed on the harm of excluding trials data supporting ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19. If the preventive efficacy of ivermectin were to be known or accepted, this would allow deployment in regions without vaccines."
- manwe150 5y agoI wouldn’t say that is the opposite, as it is suggesting both that ivermectin would be needed to be take as a preventative to slow the spread, and implies that vaccination is needed to stop it. My quote is taken from this page: https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/expanding-our-strategy-to-end-the-pandemic/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/expan...
- thu2111 5y agoAh I see, you're quoting different parts of the website.