10/n So we know that some people experience long-term symptoms after COVID-19. It is almost certain that COVID-19 in many cases causes these symptoms. But it is arguable in the sense that the causal attribution has not been 100% demonstrated
-
-
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.