Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
The graphs displayed on the webpages I linked to were current as of the day (or the day before) each of my posts.
If you visit the page for Uttar Pradesh on the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site at the link below and hover your mouse over the right-most (or most recent) dot on the graph:
The most recent date on the graph is yesterday Monday October 11 2021.
According the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site - this is the current data for Uttar Padesh:
https://coronalevel.com/India/Uttar_Pradesh/
Same for Kerala. If you visit the page on the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site at the link below and hover your mouse over the right-most (or most recent) dot on the graph:
The most recent date on the graph is yesterday Monday October 11 2021.
According the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site - this is the current data for Kerala:
https://coronalevel.com/India/Kerala/
. |
I believe the population density for Uttar Pradesh and Kerala are about the same.
= Number of People / square miles
Uttar_Pradesh = 204.2 million / 93,933 sq. Miles = 2,173 people per sq. mile
Kerala = 34.63 sq. million / 15,005 sq. miles = 2,307 people per sq. mile
Again, those graphs are not from the beginning of the pandemic (January 2020) but only the last six weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I would argue the 83% reduction in risk cited in the Peer Reviewed Ivermectin Study actually stacks up pretty well compared to vaccine immunity when you consider:
Vaccine immunity fades over time.
Ivermectin has proven to be one of the safer drugs in use over the past several decades.
The sheer number of cases reporting adverse side effects for the current vaccines in the VAERS database. (Many orders of magnitude higher than all other vaccines combined over the past 10-15 yrs.)
The lack of long term safety data about the current vaccines.
Someone of median age with minimal risk factors who became fully vaccinated 15 days ago would have a 90% or higher risk reduction against infection from the current vaccines.
But that same person six months after their most recent Covid vaccination likely only has a 70% risk reduction against infection from the current vaccines. (Thus the push for booster shots.)
Whereas, even six months or a year out - a person of the same median age and nearly identical risk factor profile using Ivermectin for prophylaxis likely continues to have an 83% risk reduction against infection. Plus zero risk for adverse side effects the vaccinated person is subjected to with each new dose or booster shot.
I would further argue that last part is not trivial.
|
The trial study of the health care workers using Ivermectin as a prophylaxis is stunning. However, there is no comparable successful study done for Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid, that I know of, not near 83% effective. There was a promising study done in Egypt, but it was debunked by the organization that did the study.
Using Ivermectin as a standard treatment for Covid doesn't look like it's going to happen, in the U.S. now that we have the new, FDA-approved Molnupiravir(which costs about $700 for a week's treatment: four capsules twice a day for five days—starting within five days after patients experienced the first symptoms vs. Ivermectin which costs about $160 for a supply of 40 tablets.)
Using Ivermectin as an option for U.S. Healthcare workers in lieu of a vaccine, I would wholeheartedly agree with, but there are some logistical problems. One, there are almost 10 million healthcare workers and one choosing Ivermectin, would have to be taking it indefinitely. Sure, a vaccine only lasts about six months but how long does one dose of Ivermectin last?
