A few people have asked me to do this, and I always like to be consistent The Great Barrington Declaration is unscientific nonsense. What about the John Snow Memorandum (JSM) Some peer-review on twitter 1/nhttps://twitter.com/1st_sealord/status/1343901657856430089 …
-
-
12/n Statement 5 is again a fact. Reinfections happen, and the reference is a case study of one of these. How often this happens is still unknownpic.twitter.com/2wimaQ23as
Show this thread -
13/n Statement 6+7 are broadly true, but pretty general stuff. We know that some combination of interventions can drive case numbers down and that the WHO supports this, it is the specific interventions and more importantly the long-term that are debated
Show this thread -
14/n Thus far, there is not a single factual inaccuracy in the JSM, and even the debatable points are pretty on the mark (the debate is more about wording than anything else)
Show this thread -
15/n Next, we have this sentence that is probably the most contentious one in the document The rest of the paragraph is obvious fact, but were lockdowns "essential"?pic.twitter.com/khOVGaKYa0
Show this thread -
16/n This is the only place where I think you could realistically argue with the statements made in the JSM. The references support the point, but aren't perfect themselves (they are basically models that show some benefit to lockdowns)pic.twitter.com/UPheGFkMdZ
Show this thread -
17/n We know that lockdowns reduce transmission of COVID-19, the question is whether the marginal benefit of various interventions is/was worth the cost in terms of economic/social harm
Show this thread -
18/n I thoroughly respect the JSM authors, and I don't disagree, but I think whether the benefits outweighed the costs is perhaps more of a social decision than a scientific one
Show this thread -
19/n Even if we could demonstrate that lockdowns saved millions of lives, there are some who would argue for political and other reasons that they were bad So I'm not entirely sure that saying these interventions were "essential" is strictly factual
Show this thread -
20/n They may have been essential from the public health perspective, but ours is not the only perspective out there
Show this thread -
21/n Moving on, we have these statements about herd immunity. This is not referenced, but is decidedly true as I myself have written https://gidmk.medium.com/the-facts-about-herd-immunity-and-covid-19-3230616b70a3 … https://gidmk.medium.com/herd-immunity-for-covid-19-is-still-a-terrible-idea-a7ce15354c43 …pic.twitter.com/JuhDErGFfv
Show this thread -
22/n Moving on, we have similar arguments to those I made in the above blogs, but more succinct, along with a few restatements of the above already referenced points (i.e. LongCOVID)pic.twitter.com/7hmBdLMf8D
Show this thread -
23/n We also have this statement. It is not referenced, but is very easily documented in every serology study on COVID-19. Have a look at the references for our IFR by age paper if you're interestedpic.twitter.com/VunzBprLPI
Show this thread -
24/n Lastly, we have the call to action, citing Vietnam, Japan, and NZ as examples of what to do to AVOID lockdown in the future Yes, you read that rightpic.twitter.com/Wjnu90ZPa4
Show this thread -
25/n Indeed, the JSM authors argue specifically that lockdowns may have been justifiable in the face of a massive, out-of-control epidemic, but that (in Oct) the best way forward was decisive action to prevent another lockdownpic.twitter.com/EjM3q3Bt2v
Show this thread -
26/n So, we're at the end. There are no factual inaccuracies per se in the JSM that I could find, and the references all support the statements
Show this thread -
27/n There are definitely two statements that are arguable, although I personally think that they are reasonable to say. Realistically, the difference between "essential" and "useful/necessary" is more semantic than scientific
Show this thread -
28/n I would say that the JSM is basically a scientific document with a call to action in it In contrast, as I've explained before, the GBD is simply an unscientific piece of political propaganda
Show this thread -
29/n Comparing the two is an interesting exercise, because even at face value they are amazingly different. GBD does not cite any evidence, and the only specific statement it makes about science (re: herd immunity) is wrong
Show this thread -
30/n In contrast, JSM is filled with factual, scientific statements that are referenced so you can check for yourself
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.