3 ms·

>Are you claiming that some non-trivial number of patients in India were treated with this Yes, example from two states. https://indianexpress.com/article/cit

by spadez 5y ago

>Are you claiming that some non-trivial number of patients in India were treated with this Yes, example from two states. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/ https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-prade... https://www.news18.com/news/india/mortality-rate-much-lower-goa-govt-defends-use-of-ivermectin-for-covid-19-treatment-3786590.html https://www.news18.com/news/india/mortality-rate-much-lower-... The testimony video in this page cites examples in many other countries https://covid19criticalcare.com/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/

jsnell 5y ago
I see no numbers on how many people were treated on either of the first two links, and certainly don't intend to comb through the dross on the third link. So do you actually have a number? It doesn't need to be exact, just a credible source on the order of magnitude will be enough. Are we talking a thousand, a million, or a billion here? To reduce R by a factor of 2 by the use of a prophylactic drug, you'd need to have half of the population on a regime of the drug. It seems pretty obvious that did not happen if this kind of reporting is the most impactful there is. Just think of the logistics of trying to do that! India has a population of 1.4 billion. On the other hand, if they only gave the snakeoil to e.g. a single digit number of millions of people the reduction in the number of infections would be imperceptible.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  This is a great comment, and an example of why discussion of ivermectin should not be CENSORED but instead debated. These would be good questions to ask the creators of any videos on the topic and from what I can see, the most popular creators would probably be open to the discussion.
- spadez 5y ago
  Its the governments of the two states that are making the claims in the news articles. I think it is safe to suppose they or the associated medical authorities have observed a big enough benefit before making that claim. But no, no concrete numbers, as I think there was not much of tracking the number of patients who were given the drug. May be it is because such numbers are not much of a value in terms of research data due to lack of controls.

by spadez 5y ago

jsnell 5y ago

I see no numbers on how many people were treated on either of the first two links, and certainly don't intend to comb through the dross on the third link. So do you actually have a number? It doesn't need to be exact, just a credible source on the order of magnitude will be enough. Are we talking a thousand, a million, or a billion here? To reduce R by a factor of 2 by the use of a prophylactic drug, you'd need to have half of the population on a regime of the drug. It seems pretty obvious that did not happen if this kind of reporting is the most impactful there is. Just think of the logistics of trying to do that! India has a population of 1.4 billion. On the other hand, if they only gave the snakeoil to e.g. a single digit number of millions of people the reduction in the number of infections would be imperceptible.

epicureanideal 5y ago
This is a great comment, and an example of why discussion of ivermectin should not be CENSORED but instead debated. These would be good questions to ask the creators of any videos on the topic and from what I can see, the most popular creators would probably be open to the discussion.
spadez 5y ago
Its the governments of the two states that are making the claims in the news articles. I think it is safe to suppose they or the associated medical authorities have observed a big enough benefit before making that claim. But no, no concrete numbers, as I think there was not much of tracking the number of patients who were given the drug. May be it is because such numbers are not much of a value in terms of research data due to lack of controls.