in reply to Nanook

Depends on how they structure the trials. Ivermectin seems to work best as an immediate intervention, when viral load is still high. But the description sounds like they're only going to give it to people who have had covid for up to 10 days, by which point natural antibodies would have started fighting it already, and ivermectin would be less effective. If they only give them these drugs when the damage is already done, then they're just going to "find" reduced efficacy. The way the article is written, this sounds like the trials are supposed to be something like the FDA rubber stamp: an official document they can wave around to keep pushing their preferred narrative. But maybe that's just bad journalism, and not bad study design. I won't preemptively claim that the studies are designed to fail. However, I'll predict they will find significantly different results from the real world interventions run in multiple countries. Treating Covid patients as they come in, with any means available, is going to be different from people who catch covid then wait a few days to get into a study.
in reply to Nanook

It's best used early in the infection during the viral replication phase, or prophylactically. Prophylactically it has shown an efficacy of approximately 82%, used early in the infection slightly better than 60% at preventing hospitalization and death, later on it loses efficacy and you're better off with steroids to control the cytokine storm, but even used late in the infection it shows some efficacy (~20%) and given that it's dirt cheap and been well trialed for other things and well tolerated it makes no sense NOT to have it in our Covid tool chest.