[chansiky]

> From a population health standpoint it's clearly not a viable alternative to vaccination

But from a sociological standpoint there's a strong case for its inclusion.

The reason there even is a divide in politics is because people lean towards one style of thinking. To either stay cautious and follow historical precedence, or to believe change is needed and want to move on from it.

Vaccines are the new and most likely to be effective solution, but we don't know its long term side effects simply because it hasn't been around long enough. Ivermectin on the other hand has been around and has been used for many illnesses on many creatures, including people and horses, successfully and may potentially be effective against Covid for which the risks outweigh potential death.

Some people, due to how they think, will never be getting the vaccine short of being strapped in a chair and shot. And that's a good thing, the diversity of thinking patterns is what keeps our species alive. Disparaging them and labeling them as idiots for refusing it, then trying to force feed it to them is bordering on what we should expect of a dystopian government.

Again, its a good thing that some people are unwilling to try new things, it keeps things balanced, but what that also means is they will never be getting vaccinated until there is more evidence. Look further than the simple math of herd immunity, factor in the fact that we aren't cattle to be vaccinated by some statistician, that we all have individual rights and different modalities of making decisions, and suddenly the solution of using vaccination _along with_ alternative drug treatments should make way more sense than trying to replicate some statistical analysis. Vaccinate as many people as possible and for those more cautious with new things, provide treatments that show some promise for which long term effects are known.

But like you said, this whole thing is so politically motivated, I dont see either side giving up any ground.