4 ms·
There is no reason to believe it has that efficacy net known side effects in developed countries and if even it did, a small fraction of individuals users decl
by xadhominemx 5y ago
There is no reason to believe it has that efficacy net known side effects in developed countries and if even it did, a small fraction of individuals users declined vaccination in favor of the prophylactic effects of ivermectin there would be no net benefit. Also, there is not anywhere near enough supply of ivermectin for a meaningful proportion of citizens in first world countries and that supply should go to people in countries with parasitic worms.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoand here I thought we might have compatible points. In the hypothetical where it is demonstrated to be effective, I don't think it is ethical to suppress the use of one effective treatment to incentivize uptake of another (vaccination). That is to say, we shouldn't deny treatment with an effective treatment or post exposure prophylatic because it might embolden other people to forgo an earlier intervention (vaccination). Your supply objection is a valid concern, but not absolute. I agree populations with parasites should get first priority if their relative benefit is greater. That said, there is additional manufacturing capacity and the ability to easily expand it. If you say excess supply cannot be used, this is the same as your argument above.