4 ms·
It's interesting because it almost makes both political sides (yes, this is politics now) actually true. Ivermectin doesn't work. This is true. But it might red
by cloutchaser 5y ago
It's interesting because it almost makes both political sides (yes, this is politics now) actually true. Ivermectin doesn't work. This is true. But it might reduce covid mortality in many third world countries, which are the studies the so called anti vaxxers claimed. They are also correct.
So... can we just say everyone was right, and maybe start killing worms across the world?
- q1w2 5y ago> can we just say everyone was right No, because neither claim has been proven true. Both are speculative. Correlation is not causation.
- ncmncm 5y agoIt would be fairest to say that no one who claims to be right is.
- ncmncm 5y agoBy the evidence, we could reasonably deduce that people who make decisions in rich countries don't give a crap about poor peoples' parasite infections or anything else, but would anyway like them to please limit breeding of new virus variants that might get back to infect rich people. Thus, they subsidize expensive vaccines, but not cheap vermicides. But not really even enough of the vaccines. As it becomes clear that herd immunity is impossible (because of animal reservoirs, and because they provide too little vaccine anyway) I expect vaccine help to trail off. Meanwhile, rich countries' mortality from complications of sugar overdosing absolutely dwarfs COVID-19's, but nothing can be done about that without affecting profits.