Is it? In the real world (not a mathematical formula) treatments are improving, vaccines being developed, medicine is moving very quickly. I would much rather get COVID-19 today than March 2020, for example
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @federicolois and
By this time next year, there is a very good chance that we will have some form of widespread vaccination. While this may still lead to endemic disease, the likelihood is that it would still drive deaths down substantially
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @federicolois and
This is, I think, one of the issues of people with no experience in infectious disease treating the pandemic as a purely theoretical exercise. There are hundreds of externalities that a very simple mathematical model does not capture
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Maybe I have no experience. I want to learn. I will ask 2 questions: - What if the vaccinne doesn't happen? What's are the expert exit strategies? - If it happens, can you guarantee here and now to me, that a vaccine in April will be the optimal course of action?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
- Lots of scenarios have been proposed - Nope I'm not saying there is one optimal course of action, just that the initial thread is incorrect in a number of ways
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Of the lots of scenarios, which one accounted for the deaths accrued by the losses (not economical, direct deaths) of waiting until we can know for certain if the vaccine works? Glad to hear about the number of incorrect ways. If you can elaborate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The main issue, as I mentioned, is the assumption that 'community immunity' is a) a homogenous state b) the 'end' of a pandemic and c) possible to reach. The other errors stem largely from these mistakes
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @federicolois and
For example, one potential consequence of long-term endemicity is infections being more common in elderly populations (as with influenza) meaning reaching this state faster could in fact result in far more deaths than the alternative
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Let me rephrase it to understand. So, because over the long-term a certain amount of people will be infected (say N) over time T. If we push T over the infinitum we would be guaranteeing less deaths? How so?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nope, not what I'm saying. Your argument is that reaching 'community immunity' will halt the pandemic and therefore people will stop dying. I'm simply pointing out that if 'community immunity' includes endemic disease, by definition people will still be dying
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
If endemic disease includes a larger burden of elderly people - as it does for many endemic respiratory diseases - the idea that 'community immunity' reached through infecting younger people would be less fatal is wrong
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.