Just to be clear, @FDA commissioner (leading an organisation which is incharge of approving and bringing life saving treatments to patients) DOES NOT KNOW the difference between relative risk and absolute risk reduction?
This is the data he cited.
Reduction in 7-day mortality (from 11.9-8.7%)- a 35% reduction in mortality in no way means that if 100 people get #covid19 and are treated with convalescent plasma, then 35 lives will be saved. These were his words to #American people yesterday. No grasp of Stats 101?
Unpublished data shows that compared to patients getting plasma on day 4, day 3 plasma patients have a 35% lower mortality risk. Comparison of intervention on Day 4 Vs Day 3. Not comparing people who receive plasma Vs those who don't. #FDA commissioner! #coronavirus#epitwitter
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Study objectives were to quantify the total disease burden of acute COVID-19 in the Netherlands in 2020 using the disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) measure, and to investigate how disease burden varies between age-groups and occupation categories.
Authors estimated:
- total years of life lost (YLL),
- years lived with disability (YLD),
- disability adjusted life years (DALY) due to COVID-19.
thelancet.com/journals/lance…
SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties.
Public health, economic growth, democratic solidarity, and civil liberties are important factors when evaluating pandemic responses. There is mounting evidence that these objectives do not need to be in conflict in the COVID-19 response.
Countries that consistently aim for elimination—ie, maximum action to control SARS-CoV-2 and stop community transmission —have fared better than countries that opt for mitigation. (ie, action increased in a stepwise way to reduce cases so as not to overwhelm health-care systems)
Scientific consensus on the #COVID19 pandemic: we need to act now.
One look at the authors list, and you'll see thought leaders in their fields; working diligently and with scientific evidence to make a difference.
"Just facts" in here, nothing else. thelancet.com/lancet/article…
The #herdimmunity approach is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by the scientific evidence
The Barrington Declaration for focussed protection towards herd immunity has no basis in science and evidence. Full stop. It is a misguided self-aggrandising document, similar to the one circulating with patient zero at the White House.
We have technical resources, we have scientific expertise, we have diversity in our experiences- @rivm and #OMT should consider using all the help they can. @C19RedTeam has offered their cross-functional expertise. A pandemic isn't just a medical issue, it is a societal issue.
Rather than rejecting any/all collaboration, @rivm and #OMT (for all their excellence) need to be inclusive, swallow their pride and open up.
All the evidence that they have made their recommendations on, needs to be in public domain.
Have we misjudged the role of children in spreading #COVID19?
COVID19 research in to kid, especially younger ones, is not perfect. It has gaps, it is evolving and we are learning more by the day.
A short summary of evolving role of children 👇 cmaj.ca/content/192/38…
Statement from Ontario’s science advisory table:
- Kids may play a bigger role in the spread of #SARSCoV2 than initially suspected.
- Early suggestions that children are considerably less important drivers of transmission are not confirmed by more recent research.
Children less susceptible? 1. Contact tracing studies reported that children<10 years old are less likely to test positive.
Limitations: Studies underestimate infection rate in children if infected children are more likely to be asymptomatic than infected adults.
@IHME_UW (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) and @UWMedicine (University of Washington’s School of Medicine), no lightweights, have come out with
global projections of #COVID19 by nation.
Short summary 👇
They modelled 3 scenarios: 1. Worse case:
- mask usage stays at current rates, and,
- governments continue relaxing social distancing requirements.
This leads to 4.0 million total deaths by the end of the year.
Best case:
- mask usage is near-universal, and,
- governments impose social distancing requirements when their daily death rate exceeds 8 per million.
This leads to 2.0 million total deaths if by the end of the year.