Here's some numbers to make a point (and you can check them yourselves if you wish here -
Harvard University-wide COVID-19 Testing Dashboard | Harvard University - https://www.harvard.edu/coronavirus/testing-tracing/harvard-university-wide-covid-19-testing-dashboard / MIT has a similar dashboard)
Massachusetts positivity rate 8.4%
Boston positivity rate 4.18%
Cambridge positivity rate (Boston suburb where Harvard/MIT are located) 1.32%
Harvard positivity rate 0.74%
Regarding Harvard's positivity rate, no infections have been traced to on-campus transmission as of 1/7/21 - all were acquired off-campus.
While the zero transmissions on campus in the last 7 days is awesome and sounds like you all have been doing a great job of reducing contagion, I wonder if those numbers are misleading. Your quoting the stats in the numbers of test that come back positive. In campus settings, its likely that there is regular and repeated testing for asymptomatic individuals. Whereas the testing of the public is likely to be on people that suspect they have the disease, either by exposure or symptoms.
Your statement " I get a laugh out of all the conspiracy theories and condemnation of science. Covid is easily managed if people were just willing to follow some easy rules. " shows a bit of an ivory tower mentality. Much as the Shigo directive that every drunken, shirtless, untrained, tree climber should make perfect target cuts on every pruning cut, it is simply not realistic. In the real world, Covid is not easily managed, because not everyone is a PhD at Harvard or MIT. Everyone is just doing the best they can. That means people are going to ride the bus, drunks are going to go to the bar, hookers are going to service their Johns, and the junkies are going to cop dope. Poor folks live in cramped quarters where they can't avoid close contact. If Ivermectin can help people survive and slow Covid-19's spread as well or better than the vaccine, then we should be supporting it's use and spreading the word. Unfortunately, the people that make the call on such things, are putting billions of dollars into vaccine research, while altogether ignoring or even subverting the possibility of using cheap non-patentable, safe, and well-known drugs, such as Ivermectin.
When you make a statement like " Won't do shit on viruses, but you'll be worm free. My wife's horses swear by it. ", you show your true colors. That tyoe of thinking is part of the problem. It wreaks of intellectual elitism. Like you know everything there is to know or that ever could be known on the subject. Where do you get that information? And can you really be so sure as to make such a pronouncement?
Here's a clue. What you DON"T KNOW is somewhere around 99.9999% of what is known. And all of that is just a tiny fraction of what is knowable, but not yet kown. Failure to realize the magnitude of what we don't know is a trap that precludes the possibility of learning something new.
There are two independent meta-analyses of all the current research on Ivermectin. BOTH show that it is effective aginst Covid-19. Hopefully, you can put down the know-it all mentality long enough to look at this information with an open mind.
PDF | This is a rapid review and meta-analysis of available comparative studies on ivermectin showing that ivermectin will probably substantially reduce... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
(Dr Andrew Hill University of Liverpool, finds the the FLCAA'a meta-analyses hold up
And there are other studies that support Ivermectin's anti-viral potential in general and particlularly against Covid-19
scholar.google.com
.
