[simpleguitar]

If iver is a good gamble, then wouldn't the vaccine be a better gamble?

After all, unlike iver, there is very good hospitalization data about vaccinated vs unvaccinated now.

[rory]

This is true, but just because the two are on opposite sides of the culture war doesn't mean they're medically mutually exclusive.

[simpleguitar]

Actually, it does.

The only reason one would be taking iver prophylactically, is because one wasn't vaccinated. And the only reason to take iver after covid symptoms develop is because you didn't take the vaccine.

If one was vaccinated and are feeling sick enough to take iver, she would be better off with oxygen and hospital SOC.

[rory]

It seems like you're just saying you don't believe ivermectin works? That's fine and likely correct, but logically it's completely unrelated to its mutual exclusivity to the vaccine.

For instance, if you get tetanus after having the vaccine, you'll still be given antibiotics. If someday ivermectin is proven to have a positive effect against Covid, we won't withhold it from vaccinated patients.

[bongcloud420]

The vaccines are not sterilizing, which means they do not stop you from catching or spreading the virus. It seems to me that any drug that is actually a prophylactic for covid would be a massive improvement.

[mint2]

I didn’t realize the lottery gave out different odds based on political affiliation.

Do republicans or liberals get better probabilities? Or is it only for Covid related odds?

[rory]

I think you may have replied to the wrong comment, or at least, I can't figure out how yours relates.