I have to disagree with you on this one. It's true we can't reduce risk to zero, but we can get it a lot closer to zero than it is now. It's estimated 1 in 200 hotel quarantine cases are leading to community cases now - too much - and it'll only increase as the pandemic worsens.
-
-
Replying to @DrZoeHyde @GidMK
I do agree that we could be doing far more with vaccination. However, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit with regard to preventing airborne transmission that we're foolishly ignoring.
3 replies 3 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @DrZoeHyde
But my point is that we won't be able to rest easy about hotel outbreaks until there is community immunity, which means for practical purposes we have to have a similar position even if we reduce the risk of outbreaks from quarantine
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @DrZoeHyde
We won't be in a similar position though if we reduce outbreak frequency - there's other costs to them aside from the public health risks. Dealing with them isn't free. Reducing the frequency of those costs is a legitimate difference. What am I missing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanDbab @DrZoeHyde
Given a low population immunity, even a low risk of an outbreak means we have to maintain a similar readiness, because the results of an outbreak are similar. So reducing the risk from 0.5% to 0.05% doesn't mean we can relax our response
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Dr Zoë Hyde Retweeted Dan Babs
I agree it doesn't change the urgency of vaccination. We can't relax until we achieve herd immunity. However, by not addressing airborne transmission, we're wilfully allowing preventable outbreaks to occur. Why, when the cost of prevention is lower?https://twitter.com/dandbab/status/1385443836311265280?s=21 …
Dr Zoë Hyde added,
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @DrZoeHyde @DanDbab
Just to be clear - this is not an argument against investing further in HQ. I'm simply disagreeing with the framing that there is a way to reduce risk of HQ enough that we will never have outbreaks
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Dr Zoë Hyde Retweeted Norman Swan
But
@normanswan never said anything about the risk being reduced to zero. He just said that we need to address airborne transmission in hotel quarantine, which we aren't doing.https://twitter.com/normanswan/status/1385395293026340868?s=21 …Dr Zoë Hyde added,
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
My point is that we are still vulnerable until everyone has been vaccinated, and that failures of HQ are inevitable even if the risk is reduced
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I think we're in furious agreement over the need for vaccination. But vaccination will take time, and until it's complete we will have preventable outbreaks until we address airborne transmission. We shouldn't accept that. Do you not think we should adopt airborne precautions?
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes
Sure, although I think some of the proposals are much more complex than people seem to think (rural quarantine especially!)
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @DrZoeHyde and
One thing that is not clear is how we are planning for future ie how can we safely repatriate vaccinated people? How can we improve protocols? We should be simultaneously increasing capacity and reducing risk. Longer stranding means new variants.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.