If we use "at >1% risk of death" to define "vulnerable", this would include roughly 25% of the population of most OECD countries
-
-
Show this thread
-
Moreover, successive places in every corner of the globe have failed to protect very obviously vulnerable populations such as people in aged care, so if you just hand-wave about making them more safe your plan is garbage
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Actually, yes. Protect the vulnerable by vaccinating them first, with descending order of risk, until everyone is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Gideon isn't arguing against allowing the less-vulnerable to generate herd immunity – he's arguing against allowing
#covid19 spread to occur absent detailed plans to prevent the more-vulnerable ~25% of the population from becoming infected. The track record to date is poor.
End of conversation
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Shouldn't this hold true for all strategies, including lockdown/restrictions?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s beyond strange how this is seen as a fringe extreme position whereas seven month punitive lockdown of *everyone * regardless of risk is a totally normal rational policy.

-
What 7 month lockdown?
- 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.