Thread by @petermbenglish

Strange letter in Journal of Public Health. @OxfordJournals
academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/adv…

I can't find a link for a "rapid response", or to write to the editor on the web site, so I'll tweet about it.
1/10

The authors claim that their ' calculations show a "Negligible risk of the COVID-19 resurgence caused by work resuming in China (outside Hubei)".

Their workings are somewhat opaque. But…
2/10

If something appears very likely to be true, a paper with modest power might be accepted as confirmation. By contrast, something which is true, but appears highly unlikely to be true, requires a much higher level of proof.
3/10

Unlikely claims must be supported by very strong evidence.

I do not see such evidence in this letter.

Why do I say that?

I shall explain why their claim is so implausible..
4/10

China claims to have controlled the epidemic through its rigorously-enforced, strong "lockdown"/social distancing measures.

This seems likely to be true.
5/10

In which case, most residents in the area didn't get ill because they weren't exposed to the virus. And, as they weren't exposed, they didn't acquire any immunity.
6/10

This means that when the lockdown ceases and social mixing can start up again, we will still have a population with high susceptibility. Not quite R0 (where 0 is the % of the popn with immunity), but not that far off it.
7/10

Which means that as soon as the virus is reintroduced (as it inevitably will be), it will start to spread again, just as it did before.
8/10

In other words, the probability of there being a "resurgence" - a second pandemic wave - is extremely high - and not, as the authors claim, "negligible".
9/10

They may be right - but, as their claim seems so implausible, they need to provide far better arguments and evidence before their claim can be taken seriously.
10/10

@threadreaderapp unroll