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
-
-
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.