3 ms·

IF ivermectin were an actually useful treatment (huge IF), and it were actually deployed at scale, you would see an immediate rise in ivermectin resistant virus

IF ivermectin were an actually useful treatment (huge IF), and it were actually deployed at scale, you would see an immediate rise in ivermectin resistant virus. Antivirals are very different from vaccines. They hit one target at one place in on specific binding mode, and it is easy to mutate so that the antiviral doesn't work. A vaccine produces a different repertoire of antibodies in every single person. No single mutation or even group of mutations affects the immune response in the same way from one person to another. It's bad luck that delta got so "lucky" in its enhanced transmissibility, but the vaccines are still effective against delta. An antiviral will not be effective against the next variant that comes after the antiviral is launched. Vaccines are the answer. If we need a slightly tweaked new booster for delta or lambda or whatever is next, I'm getting that and staying away from ivermectin et al.

angelzen 5y ago
Are you making a blanket statement that no antiviral treatment can possibly exist for long? I am not an expert, but Tamiflu is a widely available influenza antiviral. Please make a comprehension effort: I am not suggesting that Ivermectin is some sort of miracle cure. I'm simply saying that I would sleep much better at night knowing that if the mRNA vaccines are evaded through evolution (they are narrower than natural immunity), there is a secondary line of defense, ideally with multiple alternative treatments. Whether these are Ivermectin (unlikely given the data so far), fluvoxamine (recently touted in the press), remdesevir, a derivative or something completely new, I don't know. Edit. I looked up Tamiflu on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir. Alas, there are reasons to believe it not a miracle cure either. > A 2014 Cochrane Review concluded that oseltamivir does not reduce hospitalizations, and that there is no evidence of reduction in complications of influenza.[9] Two meta-analyses have concluded that benefits in those who are otherwise healthy do not outweigh its risks.[10][11] They also found little evidence regarding whether treatment changes the risk of hospitalization or death in high risk populations.
- hcknwscommenter 5y ago
  I mean, anything is possible. Death rays from mars could strike me down tomorrow at 10 am. But it is certainly unlikely that a given antiviral would be effective for long. Tamiflu is very much widely available, but it is not really deployed (administered) at scale. At peak, and now down >50%, tamiflu sales were about 1B. Even if tamiflu were $1 a dose (it's not), we are talking about a very very small portion of the global influenza patients having taken it. So yes I think that, if tamiflu were a strong protection against severe flu (it's not) and it were deployed at scale (never has never was), its usefulness would not last long.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Scenario: X suffers a breakthrough infection and is hospitalized. Doctors estimate a ventilator may be necessary in a couple days. Would you X have access to a last minute post-infection treatment, even imperfect, or just resign yourself to the likely tragic outcome? (Also, Tamiflu apparently doesn't work. Ugh...)

angelzen 5y ago

Are you making a blanket statement that no antiviral treatment can possibly exist for long? I am not an expert, but Tamiflu is a widely available influenza antiviral. Please make a comprehension effort: I am not suggesting that Ivermectin is some sort of miracle cure. I'm simply saying that I would sleep much better at night knowing that if the mRNA vaccines are evaded through evolution (they are narrower than natural immunity), there is a secondary line of defense, ideally with multiple alternative treatments. Whether these are Ivermectin (unlikely given the data so far), fluvoxamine (recently touted in the press), remdesevir, a derivative or something completely new, I don't know. Edit. I looked up Tamiflu on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir. Alas, there are reasons to believe it not a miracle cure either. > A 2014 Cochrane Review concluded that oseltamivir does not reduce hospitalizations, and that there is no evidence of reduction in complications of influenza.[9] Two meta-analyses have concluded that benefits in those who are otherwise healthy do not outweigh its risks.[10][11] They also found little evidence regarding whether treatment changes the risk of hospitalization or death in high risk populations.

hcknwscommenter 5y ago
I mean, anything is possible. Death rays from mars could strike me down tomorrow at 10 am. But it is certainly unlikely that a given antiviral would be effective for long. Tamiflu is very much widely available, but it is not really deployed (administered) at scale. At peak, and now down >50%, tamiflu sales were about 1B. Even if tamiflu were $1 a dose (it's not), we are talking about a very very small portion of the global influenza patients having taken it. So yes I think that, if tamiflu were a strong protection against severe flu (it's not) and it were deployed at scale (never has never was), its usefulness would not last long.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Scenario: X suffers a breakthrough infection and is hospitalized. Doctors estimate a ventilator may be necessary in a couple days. Would you X have access to a last minute post-infection treatment, even imperfect, or just resign yourself to the likely tragic outcome? (Also, Tamiflu apparently doesn't work. Ugh...)