Don't waste huge amounts of money on unproven pandemic prediction 'strategies' that are guaranteed to fail. Focus on what we know works - capacity building and proactive surveillance. Our #OpEd @naturehttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05373-w …
-
-
Als antwoord op @K_G_Andersen @nature
I'm going to push back a little on the themes I'm seeing emerging on twitter about this paper. There were predictions that Guinea was a high-risk area for Ebola emergence before the epidemic. Acting on that information in advance might have made the eventual response faster.
2 antwoorden 1 retweet 3 vind-ik-leuks -
Do you have any references on mentioned predictions about Ebola in Guinea?
2 antwoorden 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Completely agree - and there are some excellent Ebola ‘prediction’ papers out there (e.g. Pigott 2014/16). BUT, the critical point there, is that we’re talking about a *known* outbreak virus - not a novel one. We’re not arguing against the utility of such studies...
1 antwoord 0 retweets 1 vind-ik-leuk -
Als antwoord op @K_G_Andersen @C_Althaus en
... in fact, such studies can be highly informative. But the difference is that you’re modeling potential trajectories of a know outbreak virus - which makes sense - versus predicting whether a novel virus found in wildlife can cause an outbreak (you can’t).
1 antwoord 0 retweets 1 vind-ik-leuk
Some of the modeling papers on Ebola that I think are fantastic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25201877?dopt=Citation …https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27414263?dopt=Citation …
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.