6 ms·

N=1. Me and my 2 year old had covid. My wife started ivermectin and never got sick. Shared bed and sick 2 year old wants mommy. Ivermectin didn't work for me

N=1. Me and my 2 year old had covid. My wife started ivermectin and never got sick. Shared bed and sick 2 year old wants mommy. Ivermectin didn't work for me (diarrhea) but my fever went from 102.7 down to 99 12 hours after HQC after 6 days of a slow downward spiral (fever kept going up and up every day). So for me, my take is the drugs absolutely worked.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
I had a raging case of COVID19, and deep into a 39C fever I began burning offerings and meat and honey to the moon. It was late at night, and I figured maybe the Moon God would be awake. There was no effect on the fever. Once the dawn came, I gyrated wildly in the direction of the sun while burning incense. Within hours, my fever broke and was down to a lukewarm 38C! Now I see that COVID19 is the domain of the Sun God. I was a fool for praying to the moon the whole time. My relatives had COVID19 too. Two were completely asymptomatic and two had moderate disease in a family of 4. Since half of COVID19 cases are asymptomatic, many people think because they're taking foo, it had effect bar against the disease and that is why they aren't sick. But it turned out they're just one of the lucky 1 in 2.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, especially not on divisive topics. We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting, and they're the lifeblood of conversation. Generally on HN the approach is to trust readers to be able to make their own minds. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20anecdotes%20conversation&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note these ones: "Don't be snarky.", "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.", and "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    My anecdote is exactly as valid as his. You can't prove the Sun God didn't cure me.
    - dang 5y ago
      That's deeply, and I think obviously, not the point. Please stop now.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting They were interesting before they were weaponized by politicians. Then they became a threat. This crap doesn't belong here, dang. Seriously.
    - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
      Thank you.
    - axguscbklp 5y ago
      The Hacker News guidelines say: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." There is nothing in there about censoring things because they have been weaponized by politicians or because they are a threat.
    - dang 5y ago
      I don't see any reason to think that mikeytown2's comment is being weaponized by politicians or that mikeytown2 is a weaponizing politician. My purview is limited to HN and I try never to extrapolate beyond that, but as far as HN goes, we've always favored the principle that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds. I've been saying that for 7 years (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20readers%20smart%20enough&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) and I don't think that the crises and tectonic shifts of the past few years have given any reason to change that. (It has been a lot of work trying to shore up a culture of thoughtful commenting, with mixed results, but that's a separate issue.) IMO you guys should worry less about restricting what other people might see or think and worry more about finding the best information and the best arguments to persuade each other with. To repeat, lest anyone misunderstand: my remarks are limited to HN, which is the space I've observed enough to speak about. I'm not saying HN is an exception, and I'm not saying it isn't an exception; I don't know. Edit: two more points. First, I think there's a perspective bias here. We all assume that we're the smart one capable of making judgments about what the dumber ones might think, but literally everyone sees themselves that way. That shows not only that we can't all be right about that, but—more interestingly—that this entire line of thinking is invalid. It's a hard-wired unreliable narrator. Second and last, if HN readers aren't smart enough to make up their own minds, then this place is fucked, so we might as well make a Pascal's wager.
brokensegue 5y ago
this is not how science works
- wrycoder 5y ago
  But it is how science starts.
- slumdev 5y ago
  Actually, it does. It starts with data. Sure, we can't conclude from his N=1 experiment that it definitely works. But Youtube wants to conclude from N=0 that it definitely doesn't work, and they don't want the peasantry asking questions.
  - gcbirzan 5y ago
    It doesn't start with "my wife didn't get sick after getting treatment X". This is not data, this is noise.
    - Lammy 5y ago
      How about “These milkmaids didn’t die of smallpox after contact with the udder pustules of this sick cow”? Maybe they’ll even name something after it!
      - brokensegue 5y ago
        anecdotes like this are how you generate a hypothesis. the OP here said "So for me, my take is the drugs absolutely worked. " They do not know this. This is not how science works. They jokingly said n=1 but given it's not a RCT it's more like n=N/A.
vfclists 5y ago
mikeytown of Drupal infamy? There is a real person here.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago

I had a raging case of COVID19, and deep into a 39C fever I began burning offerings and meat and honey to the moon. It was late at night, and I figured maybe the Moon God would be awake. There was no effect on the fever. Once the dawn came, I gyrated wildly in the direction of the sun while burning incense. Within hours, my fever broke and was down to a lukewarm 38C! Now I see that COVID19 is the domain of the Sun God. I was a fool for praying to the moon the whole time. My relatives had COVID19 too. Two were completely asymptomatic and two had moderate disease in a family of 4. Since half of COVID19 cases are asymptomatic, many people think because they're taking foo, it had effect bar against the disease and that is why they aren't sick. But it turned out they're just one of the lucky 1 in 2.

dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, especially not on divisive topics. We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting, and they're the lifeblood of conversation. Generally on HN the approach is to trust readers to be able to make their own minds. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20anecdotes%20conversation&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note these ones: "Don't be snarky.", "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.", and "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  My anecdote is exactly as valid as his. You can't prove the Sun God didn't cure me.
  - dang 5y ago
    That's deeply, and I think obviously, not the point. Please stop now.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting They were interesting before they were weaponized by politicians. Then they became a threat. This crap doesn't belong here, dang. Seriously.
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    Thank you.
  - axguscbklp 5y ago
    The Hacker News guidelines say: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." There is nothing in there about censoring things because they have been weaponized by politicians or because they are a threat.
  - dang 5y ago
    I don't see any reason to think that mikeytown2's comment is being weaponized by politicians or that mikeytown2 is a weaponizing politician. My purview is limited to HN and I try never to extrapolate beyond that, but as far as HN goes, we've always favored the principle that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds. I've been saying that for 7 years (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20readers%20smart%20enough&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) and I don't think that the crises and tectonic shifts of the past few years have given any reason to change that. (It has been a lot of work trying to shore up a culture of thoughtful commenting, with mixed results, but that's a separate issue.) IMO you guys should worry less about restricting what other people might see or think and worry more about finding the best information and the best arguments to persuade each other with. To repeat, lest anyone misunderstand: my remarks are limited to HN, which is the space I've observed enough to speak about. I'm not saying HN is an exception, and I'm not saying it isn't an exception; I don't know. Edit: two more points. First, I think there's a perspective bias here. We all assume that we're the smart one capable of making judgments about what the dumber ones might think, but literally everyone sees themselves that way. That shows not only that we can't all be right about that, but—more interestingly—that this entire line of thinking is invalid. It's a hard-wired unreliable narrator. Second and last, if HN readers aren't smart enough to make up their own minds, then this place is fucked, so we might as well make a Pascal's wager.

brokensegue 5y ago

this is not how science works

wrycoder 5y ago
But it is how science starts.
slumdev 5y ago
Actually, it does. It starts with data. Sure, we can't conclude from his N=1 experiment that it definitely works. But Youtube wants to conclude from N=0 that it definitely doesn't work, and they don't want the peasantry asking questions.
- gcbirzan 5y ago
  It doesn't start with "my wife didn't get sick after getting treatment X". This is not data, this is noise.
  - Lammy 5y ago
    How about “These milkmaids didn’t die of smallpox after contact with the udder pustules of this sick cow”? Maybe they’ll even name something after it!
    - brokensegue 5y ago
      anecdotes like this are how you generate a hypothesis. the OP here said "So for me, my take is the drugs absolutely worked. " They do not know this. This is not how science works. They jokingly said n=1 but given it's not a RCT it's more like n=N/A.

vfclists 5y ago

mikeytown of Drupal infamy? There is a real person here.