3/n The JSM is basically a call to action to implement public health responses to COVID-19, particularly in Europe and the US The specific examples cited are places with very good controlpic.twitter.com/tatu0ARdmu
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
20/n They may have been essential from the public health perspective, but ours is not the only perspective out there
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
30/n In contrast, JSM is filled with factual, scientific statements that are referenced so you can check for yourself
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.