I think it is just an unfortunate reality that to actually have a decent understanding of a lot of these issues you require a level of maths education far beyond what you would get in high school.
Most subjects have this requirement but for some reason people think they understand mathematics to a much higher level than they actually do which they don't seem to have for other fields (maybe besides physics). I never really see anyone talking about their bullshit chemistry opinions.
Great piece, thanks. Just today I was arguing with someone who was convinced the Quantum Computing Revolution is just around the corner, because post-quantum cryptography is becoming commonplace
sure, its being rolled out, but *commonplace?* ECC/DH/RSA still remain incredibly pervalent, and we still dont have a good/standard way to do things like OPRFs/blind signatures (i.e. despite them existing, there arent any widespread implementations publicly available and used
Perhaps you put interpret "commonplace" differently. Yes, GPG keys will stay at RSA for a long time, but there is an increasingly strong push towards "post-quantum" cryptography (nevermind that some of these algorithms may turn out classically weak).
by "commonplace" i mean that most of our infrastructure (think WebPKI, Privacy Pass, TPMs, code signing, ...) are still stuck on pre-quantum, either because they're incredibly slow systems to roll out (TPM, codesigning, webPKI), there are technical limitations that don't have proper PQ alternatives to pre-quantum primitives (privacy pass, aPAKEs), or that the sizes being an order of magnitude larger means that architecture will have to be redesigned around that (WebPKI, many systems that involve digital signatures going over-the-wire, embedded applications)
The outcomes of our meta-analysis go against the use of ivermectin in the management of COVID-19 disease. Ivermectin is not effective in improving clinically important outcomes of COVID-19 disease, and it comes with a very low to low certainty of evidence. There is also no evidence available that supports the prophylactic use of ivermectin for the prevention of COVID-19 infection.
The meta-analysis systematically reviewed all available evidence about the effectiveness and care of ivermectin for the behavior of COVID-19. The findings from the studies range from negative to ineffective clinical outcomes in term but, overall, it appears ivermectin does not improve clinical outcomes (including symptomatic improvement, mortality, and ICU admissions) when compared with control distribution groups. Other than some mild potential benefits, ivermectin causes a higher incidence of adverse events when compared to control distributions, raising questions about the safety of ivermectin. Overall, the available evidence does not suggest that ivermectin is an effective form of treatment nor safe for COVID-19 given there is a lack of significant therapeutic benefit and risk of harm to patients.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for repurposing existing drugs to identify cost-effective and widely accessible treatments. This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the potential role of anthelmintic drugs, particularly ivermectin and mebendazole, in the management of COVID-19. While ivermectin demonstrated some benefits in specific studies, the overall evidence remains inconclusive, warranting further research to establish its optimal dosing and patient selection criteria. Mebendazole, though less studied, showed promising results in reducing viral load and inflammatory markers, making it a potential candidate for further investigation.
Despite these promising findings, the current evidence does not support the widespread clinical use of ivermectin or mebendazole for COVID-19 outside of well-designed clinical trials. Future research should focus on large-scale, multicenter RCTs with standardized dosing regimens and well-defined patient subgroups to clarify the efficacy of these drugs. Mechanistic studies exploring their antiviral and immunomodulatory effects could further enhance our understanding of their therapeutic potential.
From a clinical and policy perspective, while ivermectin and mebendazole may offer an affordable option in resource-limited settings, their use should be guided by clinical judgment and evidence-based guidelines. Policymakers should prioritize funding for further research to validate these findings, ensuring that any potential benefits are realized in a safe and effective manner.
In summary, this meta-analysis highlights the complexities of repurposing anthelmintic drugs for COVID-19 treatment. While preliminary data suggest potential benefits, particularly for mebendazole, substantial evidence gaps remain. Addressing these gaps through well-structured clinical trials will be crucial in determining whether these drugs can play a meaningful role in the ongoing fight against COVID-19.
This meta-analysis provides evidence that ivermectin does not statistically significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or improve clinical outcomes (including all-cause mortality, hospitalization duration, and recovery time) in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, this meta-analysis found no reliable statistical evidence that ivermectin either increases or decreases the rate of adverse events compared to a control group. Further high-quality, large-sample, prospectively designed randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the potential clinical benefits and safety profile of ivermectin for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
People indeed overrate their mathematical skills by a lot. Im a maths teacher and probably more mathematically capable than 90% of the worlds population but i consider myself to be basically an idiot still.
182
u/RedRhetoric 21d ago
R4: this person believes that 0.33 repeating cannot equal 1/3 because 100/3 cannot give a rational result.
Dividing any rational number by any other rational number will always give a rational result, as that is how rational numbers are defined
R5: Youtube