Additional data is required to make a statement indicating IVM was what made the difference (from a systems perspective health measures have many additional inputs). If one could find another nearby country that had a similar looking curve before IVM was introduced and then deviated from the one above after the new treatment was introduced solely in Slovakia, it would be a much better indicator of causality.
Well said. I'm very pro-IVM... but this evidence is weak. Especially since a competing hypothesis (an annual infection cycle) provides a viable interpretation of the data
India is a much better example. States in India that pushed ivermectin saw new cases plummet, while other Indian states without ivermectin use saw new cases skyrocket. The difference between states were orders of magnitude different.
Additional data is required to make a statement indicating IVM was what made the difference (from a systems perspective health measures have many additional inputs). If one could find another nearby country that had a similar looking curve before IVM was introduced and then deviated from the one above after the new treatment was introduced solely in Slovakia, it would be a much better indicator of causality.
Well said. I'm very pro-IVM... but this evidence is weak. Especially since a competing hypothesis (an annual infection cycle) provides a viable interpretation of the data
Agreed.
India is a much better example. States in India that pushed ivermectin saw new cases plummet, while other Indian states without ivermectin use saw new cases skyrocket. The difference between states were orders of magnitude different.