It is absolutely stunning to observe how the scientific community has reacted to the public health aspects of the pandemic. When the fog clears, one of the consequences of the pandemic will be public distrust in science and scientists.
-
-
Scientists with more training in economics tend to make better decisions on these topics. Scientists with vociferous opinions and little training in economics are dangerous.
-
Clinicians are primarily concerned with the health and well-being of patients requiring attention and intervention. Though they are too ‘scientists’, considerations of nation-wide mortality and population level infection control are not the principle concern
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But in the UK we’re not protecting vulnerable groups - the elderly or those with conditions that increase risk (hypertension/CVD are principle risk factors and diabetes etc). Those shielding have been informed they no longer need to. Many people have no income or means to isolate
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So which real-existing county managed to protect the vulnerable without severe restrictions? It seems that the Swedish plan had good intentions but unfortunately
#covid doesn’t work like the flu/other known diseases. -
Sweden absolutely worked. They had far fewer deaths per capita and they are already fully open.
- 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.