Yes, there are harms to disease-prevention measures. We should certainly be weighing these against the potential harms that unmitigated epidemics do and think carefully about our choices
-
-
Show this thread
-
But pretending that we can largely ignore COVID-19 without cost is just a disingenuous and nonsensical position that flies in the face of all evidence gathered to date
Show this thread -
Also, if you are ignorant enough to ignore the secondary BENEFITS to COVID-19 restrictions (e.g. influenza deaths) in your assessment, then I would say your argument is entirely political and has no basis in science
Show this thread -
This is not to say that secondary benefits are likely to be enormous, but the point is any meaningful cost-benefit is not nearly as simple as preventing COVID-19 on one hand and getting kids back to school on the other
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If even voluntary behavior changes were to cease, and if it were humanly possible for society to really maintain that in the face of the destruction that would follow. Those ~2 million death projections could still come true... Some mitigation measures are definitely needed.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It is not minimizing. The virus has thus far killed a million worldwide, including those who died with Covid rather than of Covid, in 10 months. The 1968 flu could have killed as many as 4 million, and the 1918 25 million. The elderly & sick are at risk, nobody disputes that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Strongly concur!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
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.