6 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 24.5 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
The data clearly shows ivermectin led to 70% fewer deaths, 60% less mechanical ventilation, and 25% fewer ICU admissions. But none of those amounts are reported as statistically significant...

"3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4%) 28-day in-hospital deaths...Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%)...intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%)" (ivermectin vs. non-ivermectin)

These authors made a huge mistake. They didn't check the odds of all these secondary differences being slanted towards ivermectin at once. A series of low-but-above-.05 P values in the same direction show correlation even more strongly than a single near-.05 P value does.

Also, the principal result is more narrowly-scoped than reported. Though within its scope, the study's accurate: When high-risk patients wait 4-7+ days since first COVID symptoms to decide to visit a clinic and for a PCR test to come back positive, ivermectin doesn't reduce "progression to severe COVID". But ivermectin nevertheless prevents many cases of secondary COVID effects in high-risk patients, like death and need for ventilator.

The study was not powerful enough to conclude any of this.
(comment deleted)
Something is wrong with the numbers.

Among the 490 patients, 95 (19.4%) progressed to severe disease during the study period; 52 of 241 (21.6%) received ivermectin plus standard of care, and 43 of 249 (17.3%) received standard of care alone...

The 28-day in-hospital mortality rate was similar for the ivermectin and control groups (3 [1.2%] vs 10 [4.0%]...

If 52 received ivermectin and 3 died, that's about 5.8%. If 43 received standard care alone and 10 died, that's about 23.3%. So the actual mortality difference was 5.8% vs 23.3%.

Never mind that, I misread.