Lol. Well they'd be just as wrong I guess! I do disagree with pretty much the entire tweet anyway, but the Australia thing is Jussi obviously incorrect. Ignoring the impact of vaccines in the UK is particularly confusing
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
To be absolutely fair, I'm sure I can find many instances where you refer to the US Covid response when you only meant to refer to states like Florida. And I do talk about the impact of vaccines in the 3rd Tweet.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @youyanggu
I mean, feel free to go for it I've tried to be specific. And I mean the graph in your first tweet, it's pretty clearly incorrect, restrictions were gradually relaxed as vaccine rates went up, then there was a peak of infections in the unvaccinated
4 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @youyanggu
Pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect to see if restrictions didn't work tbh
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Though using that logic, doesn't that mean restrictions don't work, since the moment it goes away cases will surge? Of course, unless you are Victoria and implement 6 lockdowns.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @youyanggu
Unless, as in the UK, you impose restrictions until you're sufficiently well-vaccinated to manage with only a small wave, in which case the restrictions save numerous lives. I guess it depends on your definition of 'works'
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @youyanggu
To be fair here, none of this is the slightest bit convincing, arguing about whether 'restrictions' work is a pointless waste of time because they vary widely from place to place. At the inflection point in your graph the UK had I believe only dropped indoor masking
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Youyang Gu Retweeted Youyang Gu
I think we have common grounds here - restrictions vary widely from place to place. So it's odd for people in say NY to call for restrictions in FL or vice versa. But many experts did exactly that. To be clear, I agree I could've rephrased my orig Tweet.https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1423721557642317824 …
Youyang Gu added,
Youyang Gu @youyangguReplying to @CT_BergstromThat's exactly my point! Too many people have been advocating for restrictions with little to no proof of causal inference. I should've said "there's no evidence that restrictions are effective", but alas that's Twitter. I clarify later in the thread. https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1423415286401732626 …5 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @youyanggu
I would argue that your original tweet is pretty clearly incorrect. Depending on how you define "restrictions" and "work", there's a large body of evidence that they work in Western countries
5 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
You alluded to this exact point earlier. The UK lockdowns are associated with plummeting infections in the winter, so many published papers saying "look! restrictions work!" But those papers all ignore what happened in the spring/summer when those restrictions get relaxed.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
I mean, if we're defining "work" as "reduce short-term infections" then there is abundant and strong evidence that restrictions work. If your argument is about the long term of a pandemic, a single graph with a misplaced arrow is not a good way to make it imo
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Sure. Though as I said in another Tweet, saying "restrictions aren't all that effective" is no less scientifically accurate than saying "restrictions are effective". You've seen plenty of scientists claim the latter with no backlash, so there's definitely a double standard here.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes - Show replies
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.