My only proposed "solution" to this at pandemic at the start was to lock old people down and pay young people to go out and get it, because they had the most to lose, it would be fair and equitable and no money to Pfizer, no inflated stock market, your choice to stay home.
Early March 2020: Drosten calls Corona a cold & says in principle it poses no danger to individuals Mid-March 2020: He says people who hold „Corona parties“ will infect whole towns „in days“ and risk killing their own parents Imagine believing „the science“ changed in 2 weekshttps://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1390337245605994499 …
0:56
1/: Pseudoscience at its best. All credits go to @c_drosten. #FLICC 
pic.twitter.com/rIPD8Ll19D
pic.twitter.com/rIPD8Ll19D
Show this thread
-
-
-
Yes, I think is basically the only choice we had, either that or do nothing, in which case the youngs would still get it at a much higher rate. What we‘ve done is worse all around.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Reliable data of the percentage that gets longCovid is still not in and many do experience nothing more than a mild cold. An HH pathologist missed vessel and nerve damages, and attributed them to pre-conditions when in fact they were caused by Covid19.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In early March fit younger people got infected at ski resorts in after ski parties. So most detected Covid19 cases were fairly mild and it took two weeks before people piled up in ICUs. Those statement are in line with the available data at the time.
-
the bulk of the data available at the time were from China. Drosten's change in attitude reflects the change in policy approach to Corona. In early March, Germany still planned minimal, mitigationist interventions, and so Drosten tried to play down the threat.
- 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.