seriously you are overthinking this: get jabbed
Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
611–620 of 805 posts
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#612Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes because there's no conflict of interest as to why ivermectin of all drugs is being pushed so hard.
Ivermectin is cheap and out of patent. Cui bono?
Sorry, but no. "Ivermectin works" is the standard, not who benefits financially from some other medication.
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#613Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FWIW, I wouldn't take ivermectin either as a prophylactic or therapeutic, the evidence just isn't strong enough, but I don't really fault anyone that would add it into the stack of treatments upon a diagnosis in the hopes of a small net benefit. If you're familiar with software development, this is akin to "there's a bug in my codebase and I'm just going to add a bunch of code that probably won't affect anything in…
You make a good point even though I take supplements such as vitamin d, etc. I would argue that the human body is already so complex that troubleshooting it similar to how we troubleshoot software is not a fair comparison because software is easier in a relative sense!
Would you rather trust a software guy or a doctor, even a very good one, to troubleshoot a computer program?
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am referring to this bit in particular: "I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret "
Right—it's like saying "I don't know who the bank robber was—they've very reasonably kept their identity secret." Sure, it's reasonable for a bank robber to get keep their identity secret, because they're doing something shady.
Yeah, that would be a kind of weird thing to say. Like, that specific phrasing. If you wanted to say that, you would not phrase it like that.
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember when the COVID vaccines were in trials and the news were all reporting that they were "80-90+%" effective on the then-current strains? Why, then, do I keep seeing arguments from people about the vaccines not being perfectly effective?
No, I don't remember that. Can you link to an archived news article saying this?
"In another promising medical development, the biotechnology company Moderna has announced its COVID-19 vaccine could be up to 94.5% effective. The news comes a week after Pfizer announced its vaccine could be up to 90% effective based on a similar, early analysis from its Phase 3 trial." (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/moderna-announces-initial-phas...)
"And then there were three. U.K. pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, along with its partners at Oxford University, became on Monday the third team to announce positive late stage trial results for a COVID-19 vaccine. The "AZD1222" vaccine was "highly effective'' in preventing disease, with up to 90% efficacy in patients receiving one of the dose regimens used in trials, AstraZeneca announced." (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazenca...)
PFIZER: COVID VACCINE OVER 90% EFFECTIVE IN EARLY DATA [video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG8U3OWSV4o)
ABC, CBS, NBC.
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…
The public is much more capable of processing and understanding nuance than we give them credit for. It's just not as profitable for the MSM.
Yes. "COVID lesson: trust the public with hard truths"
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#617Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure This post is a breath of fresh air for the blog and feels refreshingly well-researched. Between that and the unquestionable popularity of COVID-related discussion, it’s no wonder this article is popular. Scott is undeniably a good blog writer with an entertaining writing style that resonates with his reader base. However, I’ve become…
Most of the writing is fantastic, but I'm very disappointed by the take that "everyone was wrong", by the implication that doctors didn't know they should treat for worms before giving immunosuppressants. Guess what, doctors in the developing world already knew that, it was always the standard practice on Brazilian hospitals. In fact, ivermectin was in very high demand in hospitals before it was suspected to be a Cov…
Is it standard practice to test for worms with every COVID patient that comes in?
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not liberal vs conservative in a policy sense, but in a cultural sense, much more important for signaling. I think many liberals (I include myself) would say it's racially tinged to joke that a doctor and a drug dealer must be related because they have the same Spanish name.
I see, so it separates the people that assume that it is an example of racial profiling because there is a POC involved? Is the assumption that the person being mocked is singled out because of their Spanish last name.
Something like that, sure. Apart from the question of whether the joke is good or bad, I think it's pretty clear from the reactions here that it has a political valence.
Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#619Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know
#620Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. Be 100% accurate and risk confusing people 2. Be strategic about it and for the greater good. Humans have a very poor track record at actually advancing any "greater good" when they choose option 2. In practice, "the greater good" turns out to be whatever helps those particular humans keep their power and status. That's why option 1 is the only acceptable one. > We need a narrative and the cost is accuracy. If t…
How much time are you going to spend learning enough virology to make your own decisions in this case? How much time are you going to spend on the tens of thousands of other fields that you need to understand in order to make your own decisions? Alternatively, what do you do for a living? Do you make decisions that affect others? Or do you provide 100% accurate information in sufficient detail that they can make thos…
> How much time are you going to spend learning enough virology to make your own decisions in this case?
If experts in various fields could be trusted to just tell the truth about what they've found and not try to spin it or filter it, their information would be much more useful. It's precisely because the average person cannot trust experts to just tell the truth about what they've found that it's so hard for average people to get information they feel they can trust.
Also, being an expert in virology, for example, does not make a person an expert in human psychology; but trying to spin or filter your information about virology (or anything else) based on how you think people are going to receive it is a human psychology problem, not a virology problem. And if spinning and filtering scientific information was viewed, as it properly should be, as a matter of psychology, it would be much more obvious how manipulative it is--do you really want so-called psychology "experts" spinning and filtering the information you get based on their model of how human minds work?
In short: your implicit assumption that I, as a non-expert in a given field, can just trust the experts to tell me what to do is wrong--dangerously so. If the decision really matters to you, you take the time to learn enough about the field to at least be able to apply some intelligent common sense.
> How much time are you going to spend on the tens of thousands of other fields that you need to understand in order to make your own decisions?
You don't need to take time to learn tens of thousands of fields in order to apply intelligent common sense to your everyday life decisions, or even to decisions about something like COVID. Intelligent common sense just about viral illnesses in general, which should be common knowledge to any adult in a first world country in the 21st century, should have been enough to tell people in the US, for example, to wear masks and social distance around the end of February 2020, which is when my wife and I started doing it. If it's really true that a majority of the US population is unable to exercise that much intelligence and common sense, then our society certainly has a problem, but "just trust the experts" is not going to solve it, it will make it worse.
> what do you do for a living? Do you make decisions that affect others?
Not in any way that requires me to communicate information to others, no. What I do does affect others, but only in the sense that my work, which is in a technical field, has to be done right in a technical sense.
That said, I should be clear that my comments about what public officials should do are made from the viewpoint of a citizen, not from the viewpoint of an official.