Covid Anti-viral Treatment - Access disadvantages males

A change in Federal Govt policy has improved access to antiviral treatments for Covid, although still restricted.

The Covid fatality rate for Australian males aged 60-70 is twice that of females in the same age group. A male in the 60-70 yo aged group is nearly as likely to die from Covid as a female in the older 70-80 yo age group.

What do we all say?

Does the Minister and Covid advisory group need to reconsider the age eligibility criteria for access to anti virals to include all males aged 60 and older in addition to all females aged 70 and over?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

Feel free to add any comments in reply.

In addition to vaccination Australians also have ‘conditional’ access to two anti viral drugs that can reduce the severity of infection. They need to be administered as early as possible at the start of infection to offer the best chance of being effective.


And remove the restriction on the safe, tried and tested drug Ivermectin. The decision by the TGA to ban it makes no sense. It could have saved lives.

It is not ‘tried and tested’ for COVID.

The Post is subscription walled beyond a small number of reads per month.

It appears a self proclaimed medical expert in the US who also felt injecting bleach into humans as a treatment might be good and started the conspiracy theory ivermectin is a ‘silver bullet.’ Medical science is unanimous. Political science and conspiracy movements target others.


If you have worms it is useful, for COVID there is no evidence it works. The ban makes a great deal of sense, as well as the risks of self-treatment without medical supervision using it risks giving people false security where they believe they are immune or cured (when they aren’t) and who then fail to take proper precautions.

I am yet to see any proponent of ivermectin treatment for COVID who had any competence in a field that might qualify them to have an opinion worth hearing.


It depends. If you believe uninformed and unscientific opinions on the internet, then yes, you might think that the TGA response makes no sense.

If you know that the TGA is a organisation is has stringent approval processed based on scientific based testing methods to demonstrate efficacy of medical treatments it approves, then the decision makes sense. The TGA ensure that treatments it approves and available to Australians are proven to work and are also safe to use. Evidence indicates that Ivermectin is neither for Covid.


Access to the COVID antivirals is not and never has been based on gender. As of this week, ALL people over 70 years who test positive with either a RAT or a PCR test are eligible even if they are unsymptomatic. People ages 50-69 need to have two other risk factors (First Nations people should be aged 30 and have 2 additional risk factors) and then anyone over the age of 18 who are severely immunocompromised may also be eligible. Perhaps you might like to look at the actual advice here:

But there are only 2 oral treatments and both need to be taken in the fist 5 days of symptoms and for 5 days. So if you return a positive test you should contact your GP asap to see whether you are eligible.


When looking to the Commonwealth Dept of Health statistics presented gender is a factor. Medical treatments have long met female and male needs differently. The observation is that Covid impacts groups differently. Factors can include pre existing medical conditions, circumstance/disadvantage, ethnicity, age and gender.

There are or have been Covid treatment policy settings that have responded to differences between groups. In the instance of serious illness and possibly death from Covid-19 males are more likely to die and at an earlier age when compared with females. There is a significant difference in the likelihood of death from Covid between men and women in the 60-70 year old age group.

The challenge question is whether the cutoff for ready access to Covid-19 antivirals at 70 is too high? In particular for males. Commonwealth health data suggests men in the 60-70yo age group are being left out - based on fatality risk. It’s not about concurrent risk factors. It is purely an age based statistic. Men aged 60-70 are twice as likely to die from a Covid infection compared to women in the same age group. Their male fatality rate is similar to that of women 10 years older in the 70-80 year old age group.

The latest Covid policy does not respond fully to the difference and more adverse health outcomes for males.

1 Like

Without intending to argue the point medicine has many studies that show long historic differences in outcomes for females as compared to males for a wide range of maladies, exposures, and experiences, and it has been once size fits all. Generally the female has had a lesser outcome in one or another way. Those differences are rarely highlighted (although somewhat more recognised in recent times) but not much has often been done to equalise treatment.

I find it mildly interesting a disadvantage to the male has been called out.

Examples and many more can be found.


Possibly the observations from the opening post are less relevant? The following reveal suggests improving access to those under 70 regardless of gender can be readily supported.

I’m not suggesting we all race out and catch Covid to use up the soon to expire stock. :wink: