4 ms·
Important thing to know about that study is they are testing time to recovery for people with mild covid. I'm not anywhere near an expert, but two things stood
by ALittleLight 5y ago
Important thing to know about that study is they are testing time to recovery for people with mild covid.
I'm not anywhere near an expert, but two things stood out to me reading this study. First, time to recover in the ivermectin group was 10 days versus 12 in the placebo. The paper calls this "not significant" but it's not clear to me whether that's statistically not significant, and if so, why wouldn't it be, or if knocking two days off recovery isn't that meaningful. The other thing I noticed reading it was that only one person out of 400 died and that person was in the placebo group.
I think the Brett Weinstein response would be something like -
A. Ivermectin's best benefit is as a prophylactic not a treatment.
B. Ivermectin should be administered as early after onset as possible to treat, whereas here there was some delay to get people organized, enrolled in trial, etc.
C. It's hard to measure effect when the disease is mild.
- bonzini 5y ago> why wouldn't it be Because you only gave the average time of recovery but not the standard deviation.
- ALittleLight 5y agoI didn't see the standard deviation reported in the paper. Is it? I did see the innerquartile range and it was the same for both the ivermectin group and the placebo. To me that suggests that variation in outcomes is probably similar between the two groups.
- Fomite 5y agoThey provide it in the form of a hazard ratio: "hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.32]" So statistically, those on ivermectin recovered 1.07 times as quickly as those on placebo, but the uncertainty bounds are from 0.87 times as fact to 1.32 times as fast.