I think this is a silly way of thinking about things. An analogous proposal would be: Academics proposing responses for COVID which will be economically ruinous for many people should give up their jobs. Also: Ignoring HI threatens to cause more COVID deaths, not less.
As if the alternative does not require careful long-term thinking? What an odd thing to say. You seem to be arguing that no one not using your terminology could engage in complexity, which is an absurd and nonsensical thing to say
-
-
What I am saying is this: People make the mistake of thinking that every reduction in transmission is beneficial for reducing COVID mortality/morbidity. Immunity effects make this false; there is no monotonicity. What will happen in the future affects what we should do now.
-
That rests on a presumption on long-term immunity. It is also, of course, a very odd strawman not only of my position but of the majority of epidemiological thought
- 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.