it seems that the meta analysis citing 0.7% as the attack rate for presymptomatics is a sloppy error, a copy and past form the Taiwan study, as it is the same number and the lowest among the studies. The same study has the same attack rate for symptomatic contacts, 0.7%, not 19%!
i also found this study in scientific reports out of brazil which seemingly contradicts the above (later) study but it’s methods are pretty weird and biased to brazil which has data problems. i don’t like how they are looking at n^2 comparisons & lumping
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84092-1?s=04&fbclid=IwAR1JeY3gHyOSsamPKzD8GHf71twcdBPkqBYx-EUoTOpgbx5l1EAKZVpG5HU …
-
-
steel manning your argument: the dramatically lower attack rates for presymptomatic and asymptomatic people outside of frequent / close contact do not justify lockdowns when people are wearing masks, when there is good ventilation, or when people are vaccinated, with cases low
-
You're just making stuff up at this point just like the CDC did: tacking on requirements to an open society without the data to show they're necessary (and that's not even considering cost-benefit analysis).
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
this study has a lot of methodological problems, but the main one is that it doesn't account for the lag in the effectiveness of npis to the death rate. it takes time for lockdowns to affect death since the disease takes time to kill. if you incl lags you get 70% sig. relationspic.twitter.com/O48LYGimd3
-
Is 14 months not enough time? For every example where NPIs are followed by a curve flattening/decline, I can show you several more where that didn't happen. I'm sorry, it sucks that we destroyed the economy and people's livelihoods and long term health for nothing, but we did
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
