5 ms·

The tragedy here is that ivermectin is already tribal signaling for the mainstream media. It'll be pretty hard to have proper conversations over it. I'd be wil

The tragedy here is that ivermectin is already tribal signaling for the mainstream media. It'll be pretty hard to have proper conversations over it. I'd be willing to bet this post has already been flagged a couple of times. I took prophylactic ivermectin for a few weeks, and yes, it had a picture of a dog on the box, because that's the only kind I could find. You won't find human ivermectin where I live because there are no endemic parasites to treat - or at least, they are few. I stopped after getting my first shot - vaccines are the strictly superior version. But the cost-benefit situation was already clear last winter: it has a very good safety profile, and may help prevent and treat early Covid. No reason to ban people for saying that, or at least no medical reason, nor a humanitarian or social one. But it does get one virtual signaling points, because we have to get those heretics to vaccinate, even if we have to burn to the ground everything they might consider an alternative. When they have nothing left they'll realize we wanted what's good for them all along.

vb6sp6 5y ago
I didn't take dog pills and also didn't get COVID. Anecdotes are fun.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Or maybe I DID get Covid? Or maybe.... I was a dog all along?! Sorry about that. But I do want to push on a point, mostly because I have a good quote: "It's possible to make mistakes and still lose. That's not a weakness, it's life". There is a disconnect between being right on the bets you make, and winning. In this case I could be wrong on ivermectin helping. It doesn't matter in the long run, because what matters is making decent enough bets (and of course, not being unlucky). Why "decent enough"? Because satisficing vs optimizing. I don't particularly care if the chance that ivermectin helps is 25% or 75%. I'm mostly looking at the cost, and if the potential gain is at least double digits. Then I'm looking _again_ at the potential cost, then again, then checking the dosage three times and doing a search to see if veterinarian pills are usually of much worse quality. Because it's not the precise probability of Ivermectin working that's instrumental here. Only that it has a probability high enough to be worth the bother: after that, it's all focus on the downside. And yeah, turns out the downside is small. Not that any of that matters with tribal posturing, of course. "Ivermectin" = "Antivaxer" = "Trumpist" = "Evil" is a much much shorter association for our brains to make.
  - vb6sp6 5y ago
    > It doesn't matter in the long run It might matter to those out there that read this and then try ivermectin. And maybe they take a little too much. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that these types of statements can be really harmful.
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      Taking a 10x dose of aspirin is harmful. And god have mercy on your soul if you take too much tylenol - it's a very ugly death. But neither of them is taboo. Try asking in any forum if horse ivermectin is safe for humans. I dare you.
      - vb6sp6 5y ago
        The drug manufacturer says not to take it. That's good enough for me. And appealing to the higher power of random forum users is peak stupidity imo
SomeCollegeBro 5y ago
What exactly did ivermectin do for you? Did you have covid or did you take it as a preventative measure for a long period of time?
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Preventive measure before vaccines were available. I think it was 0.1 mg/kg/week, so two 3mg pills every Monday for... maybe a couple of months. Dosage is reasonable, safety profile is very good, the only doubt I had was if the veterinarian version is in any way worse. But the waters were already muddied even back then, so I could't find relevant info. You may want to recall that before vaccines, we were all pretty afraid. Now the matter is academic - we have about the same risk as from a bad flu. But last year... I'd have taken pills with the picture of a cockroach on them, when faced with 20% of long covid. I still think it was a very sane choice.

vb6sp6 5y ago

I didn't take dog pills and also didn't get COVID. Anecdotes are fun.

radu_floricica 5y ago
Or maybe I DID get Covid? Or maybe.... I was a dog all along?! Sorry about that. But I do want to push on a point, mostly because I have a good quote: "It's possible to make mistakes and still lose. That's not a weakness, it's life". There is a disconnect between being right on the bets you make, and winning. In this case I could be wrong on ivermectin helping. It doesn't matter in the long run, because what matters is making decent enough bets (and of course, not being unlucky). Why "decent enough"? Because satisficing vs optimizing. I don't particularly care if the chance that ivermectin helps is 25% or 75%. I'm mostly looking at the cost, and if the potential gain is at least double digits. Then I'm looking _again_ at the potential cost, then again, then checking the dosage three times and doing a search to see if veterinarian pills are usually of much worse quality. Because it's not the precise probability of Ivermectin working that's instrumental here. Only that it has a probability high enough to be worth the bother: after that, it's all focus on the downside. And yeah, turns out the downside is small. Not that any of that matters with tribal posturing, of course. "Ivermectin" = "Antivaxer" = "Trumpist" = "Evil" is a much much shorter association for our brains to make.
- vb6sp6 5y ago
  > It doesn't matter in the long run It might matter to those out there that read this and then try ivermectin. And maybe they take a little too much. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that these types of statements can be really harmful.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    Taking a 10x dose of aspirin is harmful. And god have mercy on your soul if you take too much tylenol - it's a very ugly death. But neither of them is taboo. Try asking in any forum if horse ivermectin is safe for humans. I dare you.
    - vb6sp6 5y ago
      The drug manufacturer says not to take it. That's good enough for me. And appealing to the higher power of random forum users is peak stupidity imo

SomeCollegeBro 5y ago

What exactly did ivermectin do for you? Did you have covid or did you take it as a preventative measure for a long period of time?

radu_floricica 5y ago
Preventive measure before vaccines were available. I think it was 0.1 mg/kg/week, so two 3mg pills every Monday for... maybe a couple of months. Dosage is reasonable, safety profile is very good, the only doubt I had was if the veterinarian version is in any way worse. But the waters were already muddied even back then, so I could't find relevant info. You may want to recall that before vaccines, we were all pretty afraid. Now the matter is academic - we have about the same risk as from a bad flu. But last year... I'd have taken pills with the picture of a cockroach on them, when faced with 20% of long covid. I still think it was a very sane choice.