If lifestyle is the key to why some otherwise healthy people under 70 die while others have no symptoms, would we not have noticed that glaring variable by now? Seems like it would stick out.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The recent study I mentioned noted viral loads were similar in people with symptoms and without. But outcomes differed.
Show this thread -
If the survivors all got a weak form of the virus while the deceased got the strong one, I think we would know that by now too.
Show this thread -
Process of elimination suggests genetic variables are likely the difference between life and death, at least for the healthy(ish) public.
Show this thread -
Compared to our other tools for battling the virus, can genetic testing scale up the fastest? It is merely a spit test. I’d like a lot more visibility on scalability. Seems like the fastest way to plunge death counts.
Show this thread -
Identify and prioritize the genetically vulnerable, pump them full of convalescent blood serum and HCQ (with consent, obvi), and open the economy. Experts: What am I getting wrong in this line of thinking?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That the death count is 43% too high
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's less dangerous than we already thought...
-
Think of the asymptomatic unwittingly infecting others. “Healthy person” has no outward symptoms but can still be infected. Through random interactions the “healthy” go on to infect others. It is dangerous. They are silent carriers passing it on. Totally different type of danger.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It can never, ever be contained (assuming that subset can transmit it to multiple others).
Thanks. 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.