The metastudy we have suggests that low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%).
Uttar Pradesh gives everybody prophylatic ivermectin so it’s plausible that it’s the determining factor for the success that they have.
Ivermectin is out of patent and can be produced relatively cheaply so that an Indian region with a lot of poor people can afford to give it to everyone. It’s unclear how much it would cost given how Western states buy medicine. There’s little emotional cost involved.
There are currently a few Ivermectin studies that are running and them reporting results might shift Western policy.
All I can find is that when people show symptoms or have been exposed, they are given a home isolation kit with 7 days of medical supplies that include ivermectin. Is that what you mean?
This page (I don’t know how trustworthy it is) claimed on 19th May:
“Three days [ago] Goa issued a Government Order for mass prophylaxis using ivermectin for the people of Goa”, said Dr Suryakant. Goa is the first state in India to use ivermectin in this way, he emphasised. Uttar Pradesh was the first state to issue a Government Order for the use of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis for asymptomatic and mild cases of covid-19 and for prophylaxis of health care workers and home contacts.
I downvoted this because, while I haven’t ruled out ivermectin as a treatment and am actively angry at people dismissing it as a horse drug instead of engaging with the claims, I object to the way this comment slid the assumption that ivermectin was good but politically suppressed under the radar instead of stating it explicitly and making the case for it.
Whether or not ivermectin is the cause for the point, doesn’t really matter. If there another factor that’s responsible for cases falling in an Indien state that still suggests that Delta cases falling is possible.
I object to the way this comment slid the assumption that ivermectin was good but politically suppressed under the radar instead of stating it explicitly and making the case for it.
It’s following the classic advice of “politics is the mindkiller”. Focus on the fact that there’s something getting the cases down without pointing to the political charged part.
I do think it’s good if people take an unbiased look at the fact that Uttar Pradesh managed to bring their case count down by three orders of magnitude.
Isn’t the more likely reason that about 75% of people in Uttar Pradesh had already been exposed to the virus or vaccinated by late July, as shown by the national serological survey findings?
What’s the QALY (including emotional and financial) hit of the policies necessary to achieve that drop?
The metastudy we have suggests that low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%).
Uttar Pradesh gives everybody prophylatic ivermectin so it’s plausible that it’s the determining factor for the success that they have.
Ivermectin is out of patent and can be produced relatively cheaply so that an Indian region with a lot of poor people can afford to give it to everyone. It’s unclear how much it would cost given how Western states buy medicine. There’s little emotional cost involved.
There are currently a few Ivermectin studies that are running and them reporting results might shift Western policy.
All I can find is that when people show symptoms or have been exposed, they are given a home isolation kit with 7 days of medical supplies that include ivermectin. Is that what you mean?
This page (I don’t know how trustworthy it is) claimed on 19th May:
When I last looked more into Ivermectin and India I found that both https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/may/12/covid-19-uttarakhand-govt-to-distributeivermectin-tablets-to-allresidents-2301677.html and https://indianexpress.com/article/india/goa-prescribes-ivermectin-for-all-above-18-irrespective-of-symptoms-7310158/ are about decisions to generally give it to all people.
https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/india-mumbai-move-for-ivermectin-prophylaxis-while-uttar-pradesh-smashes-covid-19-but-drugs-use-suppressed-in-media/ unfortuantely doesn’t say exactly how often it was used in Uttar Pradesh but suggest it’s use for prophylaxis at the end of May was enough to have a big effect. In my own reasoning them predicting three months ago that their strategy involving invermectin does the job matters.
I downvoted this because, while I haven’t ruled out ivermectin as a treatment and am actively angry at people dismissing it as a horse drug instead of engaging with the claims, I object to the way this comment slid the assumption that ivermectin was good but politically suppressed under the radar instead of stating it explicitly and making the case for it.
Whether or not ivermectin is the cause for the point, doesn’t really matter. If there another factor that’s responsible for cases falling in an Indien state that still suggests that Delta cases falling is possible.
It’s following the classic advice of “politics is the mindkiller”. Focus on the fact that there’s something getting the cases down without pointing to the political charged part.
I do think it’s good if people take an unbiased look at the fact that Uttar Pradesh managed to bring their case count down by three orders of magnitude.
Isn’t the more likely reason that about 75% of people in Uttar Pradesh had already been exposed to the virus or vaccinated by late July, as shown by the national serological survey findings?
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-icmr-covid-fourth-serosurvey-findings-7413949/
Other north indian states also show similar drastic drops, and I doubt all of them administered prophylactic invermectin.