@MartyMakary We should have had this discussion many weeks ago already. It would has saved loads of lockdown damage; the ones you describe in the article. In fact, I have warned in March to take it easy on the lockdowns as there are consequences to that too. 
@MartyMakary You write “Early on, we closed parks and told people to stay inside their homes. But studies have since shown that being outdoors with appropriate distancing carries a lower risk of getting the infection than being indoors.” Basically, we went all in on lockdowns
(A thing NEVER done here in the US; and a thing that your own article admits has a huge human cost) based on a theory that a mere few weeks later is proven to be wrong. How is this not INSANE? (I am not talking about a 10-15 day lockdown. I am talking about the 50-60 days ones!)
@MartyMakary Third point, doctor: You say that sweeping lockdowns my be wrong/worse for the virus itself and then due to related consequences. But you also say the lockdowns saved millions of lives. Seems that the length/depth of the lockdowns may have created mass damage. No?
@MartyMakary Point 4: The antibodies tests show that many more people than thought had Corona. Meaning, the IFR/CFR is much lower than feared and this - the lower IFR and not lockdowns alone - explains why there are millions of deaths less than feared. No?
@MartyMakary Point 5: In early March, talk was that Covid is 3 X as contagious as the flu and that it also had a CFR 10 to 34 times worse than the flu. This shaped models which led to lockdowns. What was the basis that Covid has both dark numbers (contagion/deadliness) at once?
@MartyMakary Point 6: As noted above, there was a fear that Covid has both; a high contagion rate and also a very high death rate. We see for 2 months however that one of those is not there. Then we know since early April (per a link in your article) that staying inside is
worse for the virus. Outside air is better. We also know that economic calamities cause death. But you write, “Months ago, I called for a long lockdown. Now we must minimize collateral damage.” So @MartyMakary Why worry only now about collateral damage and not when you pushed
for a lockdown based on concepts that were not yet vetted? @MartyMakary, I am saying that A) even IF the contagion/CFR fears were solid and B) even IF it was certain that inside is better against a virus, you would need to worry about collateral damage from the get go when
pushing a rare/monumental step. @MartyMakary in addition, why was your article not published a month ago consdiering that some info that you bring is around for FIVE WEEKS? Why did you not call governors a month ago with the new info?
@MartyMakary The last two questions echo my first tweet so I did not add a number to it. Here is Point 7: Despite having limited data on Clvid, you pushed for a lockdown. Based on data available 2 months later, you walk back some of your suggestions. How can we trust U going fw?
@MartyMakary It’s CRAZY to make policy suggestions based on things that collapse 2 months later. How do we know that next time around you and other theorists won’t make suggestion based on things that will be proven incomplete, flawed or wrong a mere 8 weeks later?
“Sweden’s outbreak has been far deadlier than those of its neighbors, but it’s still better off than many countries that enforced strict lockdowns.” - NYT 5/15/20
nytimes.com/interactive/20…
cc @neil_ferguson
nytimes.com/interactive/20…
cc @neil_ferguson
