11/n For example, reference 11, for "worse cardiovascular disease outcomes" shows a decline in ED presentations and admissions, but not only was this sustained after lockdown the authors found nothing about worse outcomes
pic.twitter.com/Fk4xFbd750
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
22/n Logically, the document is fairly incoherent, and ignores some basic realities of the COVID-19 situation 
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 
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
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
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
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
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
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.