9/n As to the fatality rate, 0.05% is very misleading. This is somewhat close to the MEDIAN risk of death for <70s, which is 0.04% (at age 35), but given the exponential gradient it rises to about 1 in 100 people by age 60!
-
-
20/n They range from obvious things that every aged care home in the world is already doing (i.e. staff rotations) to obvious nonsense (i.e. temporary accommodations for older people - this is just creating aged care homes of a different sort)
Show this thread -
21/n Scientifically, what we have in this document is a mixture of facts and fiction, with some very misleading language thrown in
Show this thread -
22/n Logically, the document is fairly incoherent, and ignores some basic realities of the COVID-19 situation
Show this thread -
23/n For example, we've shown that at at age 60 the death rate from COVID-19 is 1 in 130. Does "focused protection" extend to this age group? If so, that's >25% of the entire United States
Show this thread -
24/n And, not to belabor the point, but the GBD authors have explicitly called for a herd immunity approach constantly for the last few months. They may not like the moniker, but it is transparently their aim
Show this thread -
25/n Moreover, the authors go on about the secondary harms of lockdown, but completely ignore the secondary harms of large COVID-19 epidemics, which have been estimated to be just as bad if not worse
Show this thread -
26/n Because some people will inevitably say that I'm calling for lockdowns here, I should point out that I'm not, but that any scientific evaluation of good public health policy requires us to be transparent about the facts
Show this thread -
27/n This document instead obfuscates and misleads, in a very deceptive way. We should discuss the pros and cons of govt action, but as a starting point that requires us to, for example, acknowledge that COVID-19 is pretty dangerous even for relatively young people
Show this thread -
28/n Worth noting that this thread is *not* a review of the GBD itself. The GBD does not cite evidence and is clearly not intended as a scientific document, and as such is impossible to really review except from a political perspective
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
that one really bugged me, too. We test every employee of every nursing home every week in my county. Helps, but we still have outbreaks. The part about staffing LTC w/ people who have had the virus is laughably unrealistic.
-
Hard enough to find ppl to do this tough job with very modest pay, now we’re going to do it w/ only ~15-20% of the labor force? Only in big facilities where COVID residents can be isolated and attended by this subset of workers.
- 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.
