1/M
Many contrarians cite the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article below from @MartyMakary.
A good rule-of-thumb is to not rely on what WSJ says about science, especially science they find inconvenient for their right-wing ideology.
I'll illustrate why.
wsj.com/articles/well-…
2/M
Some background:
- PFR, or population fatality rate, is COVID-19 deaths per capita (i.e. per the total population)
- IFR, or infection fatality rate, is COVID-19 deaths per infected person
Makary gives an IFR of 0.23% for the USA:
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
3/M
Mackary likely uses John Ioannidis' long-debunked paper:
who.int/bulletin/volum…
That makes no sense since 0.23% is Ioannidis' *global* estimate. The USA's IFR would be higher than that, since IFR increases with age and the USA is older on average
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
4/M
Ioannidis also chooses non-representative samples that over-estimate the number of infected people, + thus under-estimate IFR.
He thus gets *impossible* results, since he requires more people be infected than actually exist.
web.archive.org/web/2020121700…
5/M
This is the same John Ioannidis (a.k.a. Dr. 40K) who for months used his under-estimated fatality rate to repeatedly under-estimate the number of COVID-19 deaths the USA would suffer.
Yet @MartyMakary relies on him anyway.
archive.is/dT97F#selectio…
6/M
The USA's IFR is at least 0.5%, probably more. That's double what Makary claimed.
By Makary's logic, that implies ~30% (or less) infected people, not "roughly two-thirds".
7/M
Makary then gives the typical distortions on "natural immunity". I've already debunked this on another thread, and am fed up with people misrepresenting my field of expertise to suit their ideological agenda. 🙄
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
8/M
Makary leaves out Manaus having a large 2nd wave (herd immunity would prevent that), + the study in question likely over-estimated the proportion of infected people by using a non-representative sample
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
9/M
Makary downplays the pandemic's severity by saying "most infections are asymptomatic".
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
He gives no sound basis for that.
acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…
acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…
web.archive.org/web/2021021801…
jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/ja…
10/M
Other issues include:
- vaccine-mediated immunity is often meant to be better than "natural immunity"
- many re-infections would be missed since surveillance doesn't catch all infections
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
11/M
It's ironic Makory claims herd immunity will be reached by April with >66% of people infected, when he previously peddled debunked work on 10% - 20% infection rates being enough for herd immunity.
That was false hope.
12/M
So WSJ + Makary downplay the severity of the pandemic and peddle false hope to suit their right-wing agenda. They've been doing this for the better part of a year.
People need to stop falling for it. Lives are at stake. 😑
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
13/M
Makary's claims on T cells also fail. For example, he cites work that under-estimates the number of people with antibodies (i.e. uses a test with low sensitivity).
This has been known for months.
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
14/M
Makary's insinuation is impossible anyway, since there are places where >65% of people have antibodies. And a co-author of the study was hesitant on its implications.
15/M
Challenge for @MartyMakary's defenders:
In his WSJ piece he says, "roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population has had the infection."
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
Find reputable evidence of ~220 million people infected in the USA.
@youyanggu won't help:
web.archive.org/web/2021021908…
16/M
Re: "Challenge for @MartyMakary's defenders:
[...]
Find reputable evidence of ~220 million people infected in the USA"
USA's CDC won't help
~28 million reported cases * 4.6 = ~129 million infections
covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra…
web.archive.org/web/2021021905…
17/M
The two articles below from the New York Times and the Washington Post are much closer to a right answer than is @MartyMakary's opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal.
18/M
Re: "Find reputable evidence of [~67%] infected in the USA"
@MartyMakary's (debunked) source for IFR won't help, since the USA had >500 COVID-19 deaths per million, so 0.57% IFR applies.
His calculation would then give ~26% infected, not ~67%.
who.int/bulletin/volum…
19/M
Re: "Find reputable evidence of [~67%] infected in the USA"
Won't get there by combining reported COVID-19 deaths (or excess deaths) with age-specific IFR to calculate the number of people infected.
cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr…
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
20/M
h/t @21law
I'd say *temporary* herd immunity (HI) by summer with vaccines, but non-vaccine-mediated infection-based HI won't last.
"A Wall Street Journal op-ed predicts herd immunity by April. Why experts say that's wrong"
wusa9.com/article/news/v…
21/M
@HealthFeedback article explaining errors in Makary's WSJ piece, with input from @DiseaseEcology, @BillHanage, @angie_rasmussen, @aetiology, etc.
Overlooked the @aetiology's point on symptomatic re-infection.
healthfeedback.org/evaluation/mis…
22/M
The WSJ's Editorial Board (WED) posted a defense of Makary's article.
WSJED's response is politically-motivated nonsense, in line with the denialism they display on other topics like climate science.
archive.is/1JnsW
23/M
WSJED treats criticism as censorship + "silencing"
archive.is/NqIKj#selectio…
Free speech doesn't mean a private company is required to be a platform for one's misinformation. Just ask those peddling MMS (a bleach).
Free speech =/= freeze peach
row 7:
24/M
USA's 1st amendment protects against what China's government did.
WSJED creates a false equivalence when it treats that government suppression as being akin to a *company* aptly pointing out misinformation on its platform after consulting experts.
archive.is/1JnsW#selectio…
25/M
WSJ's Editorial Board:
- screws up on re-infections, as per part 10/M
- misuses a blood donor study, even though those over-estimate the number of infections
- messes up on Ioannidis' paper, as per parts 3/M to 5M, and 18/M
26/M
WSJ's editorial does not grasp that SARS-CoV-2 cases/day, hospitalizations/day, etc. increasing in Manaus means R (the effective reproductive number) went above 1. That means no herd immunity, by definition; see part 8/M.
archive.is/1JnsW#selectio…
27/M
So the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board made introductory-level errors they could've avoided if they did what Facebook did: consult experts.
Not that the Board honestly cares. They value their ideology more than facts.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
28/M
April is upon us, + we don't have nationwide herd immunity (R>1 even with non-baseline restrictions, cases/day increasing, etc.).
ourworldindata.org/explorers/coro…
ourworldindata.org/explorers/coro…
ourworldindata.org/explorers/coro…
@MartyMakary:
🤦♂️
wsj.com/articles/well-…
29/M
h/t @21law
Makary moving the goalposts to May to avoid admitting he's wrong. 🙄
""[By] April or May, we're going to start seeing gradual slowing," Makary added"
newsweek.com/us-will-reach-…
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.