Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#801

Post by CountDrewku » Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

RubberMullet wrote: post #792

CountDrewku wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. That's you being biased against information you dislike and then justifying its "falseness" by attaching whatever -ist label makes you feel better. Thinking that white supremacists and Nazis are running all over the place in 2021 is pure bs propaganda being pushed by our media. Is your point here to suggest that belief in alternative COVID treatments means you're a racist bigot? Proof please.

Given how ridiculous my comment was I didn't feel the need to preface it with any sort of sarcasm warning. My apologies.

Yeah that totally flew over my head. I hear stuff like that enough though that it isn't far off from what a lot of people actually believe.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#802

Post by Joking_Phantom » Tue, Nov 23, 2021, 1:18 AM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #321

Joking_Phantom wrote: post #46

Love the final explanation for how ivermectin can be incidentally good for COVID-19 patients, even if it does nothing to COVID-19 directly. In fact, as the author cites from another researcher, the trials are a strong piece of evidence for "add[ing] ivermectin to mass drug administration programs." In other words, global medical welfare, where we just give everyone a bunch of a cheap and effective medications to coun…

I think you should clarify that Ivermectin works better in higher-worm-prevalence areas. It's not remotely true that 10% of Americans have undetected worms. The praised study in the post highlights 12.5% as "high" prevalence, so 10% would be nearly high -- not true in the developed world.

10% is a token number for argument's sake, not any rate based on reality

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#803

Post by merchantdice » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 4:48 AM UTC

romeros wrote: post #287

astrange wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.

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…

why not have 2 levels? One for ACX level deep dives complete with assumptions, contingencies, and probability distributions and another for public consumption.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#804

Post by collinmanderson » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 4:19 AM UTC

CRConrad wrote: post #798

jdub wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You don't need to wear masks" was bad advice from well-meaning people who should've known better. The researchers who did know better couldn't push past deeply-entrenched anti-miasma attitudes quickly enough. "Use social distancing and isolation to avoid COVID and get vaccinated as quickly as possible" is good advice from well-meaning people who do know better. Sorry it's unpleasant, but if the USA behaved rationall…

> Sweden readily admits that its approach was a terrible mistake. It does?!? Funny, how can I have totally missed something as big as that? I'm a Swedish "expat"; I have now lived abroad for just a little longer than I lived in Sweden (26 vs 26.5 years), but I've always followed Swedish media and I still travel there regularly. All I've seen is some hemming and hawing about "Perhaps not totally optimal"; far from any…

Here a link about lockdowns:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientist-behind-swedens-no-loc...

> The epidemiologist behind Sweden’s controversial decision to forgo a mandatory lockdown conceded for the first time that more restrictions might have helped prevent a surge in coronavirus-related deaths.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#805

Post by CRConrad » Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

collinmanderson wrote: post #804

CRConrad wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sweden readily admits that its approach was a terrible mistake. It does?!? Funny, how can I have totally missed something as big as that? I'm a Swedish "expat"; I have now lived abroad for just a little longer than I lived in Sweden (26 vs 26.5 years), but I've always followed Swedish media and I still travel there regularly. All I've seen is some hemming and hawing about "Perhaps not totally optimal"; far from any…

Here a link about lockdowns: https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientist-behind-swedens-no-loc... > The epidemiologist behind Sweden’s controversial decision to forgo a mandatory lockdown conceded for the first time that more restrictions might have helped prevent a surge in coronavirus-related deaths.

But "might have helped prevent a surge" feels pretty far from "admits that its approach was a terrible mistake".