If the pattern in India was very much the same as in the UK, where so far as I know there was no prophylactic ivermectin at all, that makes it less likely that the ivermectin was an important part of the rapid turnaround in India.
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.)
If the pattern in India was very much the same as in the UK, where so far as I know there was no prophylactic ivermectin at all, that makes it less likely that the ivermectin was an important part of the rapid turnaround in India.
Do “the studies we have” include that big one that turned out to be probably completely fraudulent?
The study in your link is about using ivermectin for treatment, while this is about ivermectin for prophylaxis so no it doesn’t include it.
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.)