Aha, OK, then indeed that wouldn’t be relevant. Which would be good news for the prospects for prophylactic ivermectin, I guess. (My understanding is that the Serious Medical Establishment mostly reckons that what ivermectin studies there are are too weak to base anything much on; on the one hand, the Serious Medical Establishment seems to have trouble distinguishing “insufficient evidence of the best kinds” from “no evidence at all” from “therefore this treatment is probably harmful on net”; on the other, my impression is that things that look like “insufficient evidence of the best kinds” turn out false much more often than one would naively expect, presumably because of publication biases and the like, so the Serious Medical Establishment’s processes are more reasonable than they may appear.)
Aha, OK, then indeed that wouldn’t be relevant. Which would be good news for the prospects for prophylactic ivermectin, I guess. (My understanding is that the Serious Medical Establishment mostly reckons that what ivermectin studies there are are too weak to base anything much on; on the one hand, the Serious Medical Establishment seems to have trouble distinguishing “insufficient evidence of the best kinds” from “no evidence at all” from “therefore this treatment is probably harmful on net”; on the other, my impression is that things that look like “insufficient evidence of the best kinds” turn out false much more often than one would naively expect, presumably because of publication biases and the like, so the Serious Medical Establishment’s processes are more reasonable than they may appear.)