So, I have had a proper read of this document, and I thought it might be worthwhile to actually go through and carefully analyze the document Let's do some peer-review on twitter 1/nhttps://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1337379606739841036 …
-
-
Fine, I think your own opinion about the writers is shinning through too much to be able to objectively counter the article you want to argue. You are putting words in the mouths of the writer and that should not be necessary if they are wrong (which they very well might be)
-
I mean, the argument in the document is that the pandemic will continue until such a time as we reach herd immunity, and the direct implication is that our intervention must last until this point. It is not at all a stretch, simply the implicit meaning of the statement
- 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.
