I mean ignoring any strategies to reduce mortality and morbidity which acknowledge the role of immunity in the epidemic. Any time HI ends up playing a role (as it has already) and we have declined to enact policies intended to affect how this happens, we have excess death.
Also, worth noting that without a fulsome examination of long-term sequelae of COVID-19, the argument that immunity is largely without cost in certain populations is by its very nature a spurious one
-
-
These ideas do not depend on believing that there is a 100% chance that there is 100% perfect immunity over the long term. They do depend on believing that the cost borne by infection by different populations are different, one of the most well-established features of COVID.1/
-
By comparison, the assumptions underlying attempts to contain or eliminate COVID are far more speculative. I am fine with someone laying out a quantitative argument that the level of uncertainty we have regarding immunity, etc., means HI is a worse choice. Haven't seen one yet.
- 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.