If you are proposing a strategy for COVID-19 that hinges on protecting the vulnerable, and you don't: a) define 'vulnerable' in detail b) specify how they are going to be protected Your plan is obvious nonsense
-
-
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 threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I point this out a lot to people. They haven't a clue really.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nah you just gotta find that >1% and prevent then from dying. /sarc obviously
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is that bad? That sounds reasonable to me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think the idea is to frame 1% as very low and rather go with >5% IFR as threshold. Easy way to reduce the size of vulnerable group...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.