Model 1 was published to great acclaim in a paper in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7 … The crux of this new preprint appears to basically be saying that this previous publication was pretty shit
-
-
Show this thread
-
And look, it's hard to disagree that a lot of COVID-19 models are terrible What's weird is how denialists are seizing on this paper as evidence that lockdowns didn't work
Show this thread -
Some quotes from the paper: "We do not claim that lockdown measures definitely had no impact" "our results should not be interpreted...that NPIs are totally ineffective" "substantial uncertainty may remain despite the best efforts of the modelers"pic.twitter.com/R58jUkoboj
Show this thread -
Oddly enough, I'm not sure the conclusion in the abstract actually agrees with the lengthy conclusions of the paper itself, which is a bit confusingpic.twitter.com/pecNTDbiuF
Show this thread -
If nothing else, the paper demonstrates that lockdowns reduce R(t) by a reasonable amount, even if that is from 0.9 to 0.6, and this could reduce the overall death count in a pandemic wave by many thousands
Show this thread -
Although worth noting that I've been saying this for months, from mine and other data I suspect that the actual implementation of restrictions at the start of the pandemic had less of an impact than the caution around the disease itselfpic.twitter.com/A6iGatlC4w
Show this thread -
Anyway, it's absurd cherry-picking to say that "lockdowns had little or no benefit" from this paper, what it appears to show is that models used to determine the benefits of lockdown are pretty crap
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ioannidis has poisoned his own well. A shame after his previous work built a profile of scientific rigour
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Dear Lord they didn’t work. The virus never stopped spreading because that’s what viruses do. And lockdowns never occurred in LTC facilities like they should have. Misallocation of resources to the max. Take 20% and apply to the 80% who are dying. Over 65 folks
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The man simply has no credibility. None. His view that SIP orders were the "fiasco of the century" would cause most people to slip into obscurity out of embarrassment but he just doubles-down. 350k deaths later and he is still selling stupid-juice to finances aholes and techbros
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.