What we "should" do must be something we "can" do. Thus *the* threshold q: Is eradication possible? It is not--read the paper below. Aiming at what we can't do is not just pointless but dangerous. Need to stop signaling about eradication & start developing real strategieshttps://twitter.com/sdbaral/status/1294612884509646849 …
-
Show this thread
-
@MartinKulldorff's plan is an example of a rational way forward. Risk-based mitigation plus high-yield/low burden NPIs. Sustainable & saves lives, while reducing collateral control costs. Goal is optimize all-cause mortality/human welfare, not just covid.https://www.contagionlive.com/news/evaluating-age-based-coronavirus-strategies-martin-kulldorff …3 replies 13 retweets 57 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NahasNewman @MartinKulldorff
.
@MartinKulldorff Does Sweden (possibly excluding Stockholm nursing homes) sero-positivity and mortality data show the kind of biasing to younger ages (as compared to China/NY/Italy) which would be expected from a successful strategy to protect the elderly?2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BernieB53293225 @NahasNewman
For seropositivity, yes. Youth mortality is so low, one would not expect to see much difference.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MartinKulldorff @NahasNewman
Thanks for responding. Do you think the T-cell cross reactivity from other HCoVs being reported confers real protection? And if so, could it be worthwhile to variolate using HCoVs while we wait for a Covid19 Vaccine?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Good questions, but better to have an immunologist respond. I try not to diverge from my own areas of expertise. @StarredBastard @michaelmina_lab @VirusesImmunity
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.