Conversation

So, three wrongs don't make a right. And this entire strategy is just wrong in so many ways. 1/
Quote Tweet
NEW Profs @SunetraGupta @MartinKulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya met over the weekend in the US to write a declaration calling for a different #Covid approach. They're in Washington DC today meeting admin officials. Text and interview up now on @unherd unherd.com/2020/10/covid-
51
602
First, let's knock down the straw man up front. No one is supporting massive, across-the-board lockdowns everywhere, all the time. This is the foil for these arguments. And it's a convenient bogeyman. 2/
17
325
Second, we can do better than we have been to date. This requires more testing of asymptomatic individuals to "know our epidemics" locally, so we can tailor responses in time and place. 3/
5
230
In a place like Connecticut for example, with low rates of new infections, a strategy based testing, tracing, isolation with the requisite resources would go a long way, in addition to a mask mandate for all, distribution of PPE liberally to anyone interfacing with the public. 4/
7
173
But we are going to have to decide: is it more important to us to open bars or open schools? If it is the latter, we invest heavily in testing, reconfigure ventilation, require masking, shrink class sizes or increase physical space by taking over other closed establishments. 5/
9
262
Right now, places with high rates of spread have to get their rates down now. This isn't going to happen by magic. Shutdowns are going to have to happen along with all the other interventions I've described. 9/
4
146
All of what I've mentioned here is what is the view of most epidemiologists and clinicians working in infectious diseases. Just is. No conspiracy. No secret agenda. 10/
6
151
For a start, we are in agreement that the pandemic has created indirect harms for many beyond the direct effects of infection with the virus itself. These cannot be ignored and need to be addressed head-on. BUT...12/
1
117
Rather than address the real indirect effects this pandemic has caused, they suggest that the best way to deal with the matter is to increase the DIRECT causes of harm instead. 13/
2
168
They suggest that we should focus on protecting the elderly and vulnerable, and let everyone else go about their business, get infected to build herd immunity in the population. That's the main gist of it. 14/
3
106
Let's start with the elderly. Most of the elderly in the US are NOT in nursing/care homes. Yes, we should protect those in nursing homes, where we have seen much of the mortality in the US, but the track record even there is terrible thus far. 15/
3
134
Now, a large chunk of the elderly in the US live with family or are alone or with their similarly elderly spouses--that is they are integrated into the community. How do you pull these older people to safety? What's the plan? 16/
3
152
If you're going to turbo-charge community spread, as everyone else at "low-risk" goes about their business, I want the plan for my 86 year old mother to be more than theoretical. They do NOT have one. 17/
7
183
So, we have now arguably the majority of the population--the elderly, chronically ill and disabled, who are going to have be sequestered while the young and fit go about their business, catching the disease, building up herd immunity. 20/
5
125
And though will defend Sweden's experiment with a similar strategy, and where they had more deaths than their peer nations nearby, didn't the avoid economic pain, he never mentions the context that makes Sweden different than the US. 23/
5
112
Sweden simply has a better healthcare and social service system than we do. Trying the Swedish model here offers less protections than they had in Sweden to deal with the consequences of their failed strategy. 24/
9
161
I get it. We're all tired. This pandemic sucks. The measures we've had to take are terrible too. But beware of the answers you want to hear: it's OK, if you're not at high-risk, get back out there, help build herd immunity, it's scientific! 25/
4
144
We need to do better, but better means more resources to do things right--it's not a fantasy to suggest this, as many others countries have been better at this than we have been. But there are going to, even then, be set-backs. It's the nature of the beast. 26/
4
115
And a few last things. Some have suggested that it's a fantasy to think we can treat each other better rather than cutting ties to the vulnerable, while the rest go about their business. 27/
1
84
And that's the "tell," the lie in the strategy. If we cannot treat each other better, invest in a better world, there is no chance of creating a net to catch the elderly, the vulnerable when this pandemic comes for them, comes for us. 28/
1
133
They all want the second part--let us go back to our lives--and would be content to leave the rest of us behind. That's the appeal of this strategy for many. 29/
2
97
And for those of you who don't know me. I've been fighting for the rights of people with HIV, TB, HCV and other diseases since I was in my 20s. I watched a botched response to the AIDS pandemic in two countries up close: the USA and South Africa. 30/
4
125
And the calls to social justice by these three fall flat. When this all started, many of us were calling for vulnerable communities to be protected, focused on as a priority. Those of us in health & human rights made it our mission. These three were nowhere to be found. 31/
5
123
Finally, there are always the fringe positions in science. Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis (a Nobel Prize winner!) made it their mission to suggest HIV was not the cause of AIDS. But you look at the totality of the evidence, not just look for the science you want to hear. 32/
15
132