Yesterday’s interview of Harvard & Standford professors of medicine @MartinKulldorff, Jay Battacharya & @MLevitt_NP2013 is the sanest appraisal of the C-19 situation I've heard. I know many won’t have 2 hours to take it all in, so here’s a summary.

I’ve paraphrased comments and Q&A responses and organized them under six headings:


Runaway exponential growth hasn't happened anywhere. With the possible exception of Iran, the epidemic has exhibited marked consistencies. The virus is "behaving well", but people have been less consistent than the virus.

The purported reason for lockdown was to prevent overburdening of healthcare resources. Massive overprediction of demand happened nearly everywhere. Instead, the real problem was that hospital utilization fell so low that the sustainability of hospitals was jeopardized.

Non-Covid Deaths at home have skyrocketed. Elective procedures, cancer screening & doctor visits that didn’t happen have caused or will cause death and health impacts. It is likely excess deaths coincidental to the epidemic arose because treatment wasn’t sought or provided.

Initial Chinese case fatality rates were obvious overestimates of the infection fatality rate. Using cases is complicated. Countries define them differently. Cases should be defined by a positive test AND presence of symptoms. Recording cases on a test only is unsound.

Assessing fatality rates using cases is a mistake, because the denominator is underestimated. For every confirmed case there are multiples more infections, although the vast majority are asymptomatic.

Even seroprevalence studies overestimate the fatality rate because some portion of the population have immunity through mechanisms other than antibodies. Severe viral pneumonia is a small fraction of infections.

Hard-hit places have higher than 700 deaths per million, whether they locked down hard or did nothing. Some places have very low death rates in the order of 10 per million and we don't yet know exactly why.

Covid mortality is sharply age-differentiated, with a 1,000-fold risk difference between the old & the young, for whom it’s less severe than flu. Every yr there are flu deaths among kids. Not with Covid. Among 1.8m Swedish children who stayed at school there were 0 deaths.

"Second waves" of cases in countries are not generally accompanied by second waves of deaths. Where they are, they are instances of "filling in" places that weren't impacted initially. They don't seem to occur in the same location.


Calling Covid a "novel" coronavirus was a mistake. Coronaviruses are far from new and this one is closely related to ones that have circulated among humans for ages.

The scientific evidence for t-cell mediated immunity is very strong. It is very clear that there is long-lasting protection from prior infection. This is no surprise. It happens with many diseases.

Herd immunity is not a "strategy". It is the inevitable outcome, whether through natural infections, vaccines or, most likely, a combination of both. The longer you drag that out, the harder it is to protect the vulnerable.

The idea of herd immunity is not about doing nothing or letting the virus rip. It's the inevitable end-state of an epidemic. The point is that an age-targeted approach is the best route to herd immunity, as a vaccine is unlikely to be available for first waves.

The goal of a vaccine is herd immunity. Covid is never going to be eradicated. It will be endemic. The reason there are few cases in New York is mostly because of immunity, not guidelines.

Seroprevalence is an unreliable guide to assessing whether herd immunity has been attained. Antibody production declines over time, yet immune memory persists much longer & is very effective at protecting recovered people from contracting the disease when exposed again.


Structuring society simply to limit the number of covid cases is a mistake. A holistic approach is the only one that is fair. Age-targeted strategies are crucial.

Mandates to wear masks: The evidence doesn't suggest they're effective in slowing spread, yet they cause social strife. There aren't sufficient benefits to require them. In general, it's better to provide advice than issue mandates. Instead of sowing panic, provide info.

General lockdowns, closing schools, businesses & beaches, cause serious public health problems, increasing total deaths. Lockdowns should be off the table. Another would be disastrous. It’s healthy for the young to go to bars & restaurants. The elderly should avoid crowds.

It is not possible to discern benefits from lockdowns and NPI mandates in the data. Coercive mandates in general our contra-indicated. If we could lock down at zero cost, it would maybe be useful, but we can't.

The benefits of lockdown are small and the costs are enormous and catastrophic. We know this as a matter of certainty. Lockdowns have never in history eradicated a disease. Countries that are continuing with lockdowns are harming their populations.

Efficacy of coercive non-pharmaceutical intervention mandates in general is not evident in the data, with the exception of hand-washing. For example, mask mandates are uncorrelated with disease spread. Mask-wearing by kids at school does not make sense.

A frequent mistake is to interpret continuing decline in the disease as evidence that an intervention is effective. Continuing decline in the change in daily deaths is the natural pattern of the disease.

A policy that asks the young to isolate or distance is a mistake. It was a mistake to close schools. This exposed huge numbers of children to risks that their schools normally protect them from. The focus should be on protecting the elderly.

Universities should operate almost normally. Students should be on campus & attend normal classes, unless their teachers are particularly vulnerable. Students who get sick don't need to be tested, but merely stay in their dorms. Going home simply puts parents at risk.

It's not right to expel students for going to parties. Such policies to quarantine the young are unnatural & cause psychological harm. 1 in 4 young adults seriously considered suicide in June. Universities have an obligation to respect that and not harm their students.

Children transmit to adults at much lower rates than for other respiratory diseases, posing little risk to teachers, whose risk is no worse than other professions. Sick kids should be sent home as is normal. There’s no point in schools taking any other measures.


Testing asymptomatic youngsters at schools and universities makes no sense. "There are certain people who think testing is the solution to everything. I'm not one of them." (Levitt)

Deploying PCR test with cycle thresholds of 40 isn't sensible for general purposes, especially when attached to an environment of contact tracing & quarantine. This results in quarantining huge numbers of people who aren't even contagious, imposing enormous costs on them.

These are functional and epidemiological false positives. These costs make people less willing to co-operate with contact tracers. As many as 60% consequently lie when asked to disclose contacts.

Oxford University opines you're only likely to be dealing with live virus for cycle thresholds of 25-26. Higher than that and you'll be picking up viral fragments. It only really makes sense to up sensitivity in nursing home contexts.


There has been a tear in the fabric of society. The media has been irresponsible and partisan.

The Imperial College group declined engagement with top scientists who were critical of their work, including some who were pointing out that their numbers were out by an order of magnitude.

Top academics producing results that contradict the prevailing narrative have struggled to get their work published. You solve hard problems by having discussions, and many academics have been unwilling to engage in them.

"As a public health scientist who has been working with infectious diseases outbreaks for many years, I am absolutely stunned by the reaction of the scientific community as well as the media to this…” (Kulldorff)

There have even been open calls by academics to establish in effect a censorship board over open science. Stanford Professor John Ioannidis' videos were suppressed. Dissenting scientists have been attacked.

“Dr Sunetra Gupta is the pre-eminent infectious disease expert in the world and until very recently has had a very hard time getting people to even listen to what she is saying." (Kulldorff)

"Dr Heneghan, also at Oxford …& my colleagues, Baral, Chandler, Livingstone, Yih & some who are afraid to speak out … favour an age-targeted approach. Most of the high-profile scientists [you hear the opposite from] have not actually been experts in infectious diseases.”

When this is over we are going to have to work hard to re-establish the public's acceptance of science.


Does this mark the end of YouTube and others censoring speech that contradicts the @WHO, because this interview certainly does?

I’ve never read conspiracy into anything that has happened, but can you listen to this and conclude anything but that many have been swept up in the costliest overreaction of all time?

With so many people conflicted and heavily committed to the prevailing narrative, what is the route out of this mess? What can we do to amplify these voices of reason?


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Nick Hudson

Nick Hudson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NickHudsonCT

11 May
Look at this guy! An example of the psychological pitfall of anchoring. Clearly a reasonable hand at data, but he decided a while ago that masks work, and so the data MUST show that, even if they sure as f%*€ don’t. /1
In any other era he’d have no trouble telling you that his explanation of the lack of a result would have virtually zero chance of manifesting in any one location, let alone every one he looked at. /2
I can’t help but like the guy, even though his post hoc rationalisation as an apparently numerate man makes you realise what a profound problem we face when it comes to those brought up in the corridors of Woke U, where the very concept of reality is viewed askance. /3
Read 5 tweets
3 May
"[T]he researchers determined that SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T-cell responses remained largely intact and could recognize virtually all mutations in the variants studied." /1…
Here's the paper. /2…
This is, of course, not surprising, as discussed here, by @PanData19: /3…
Read 5 tweets
2 May
When two of the best summaries of the Covid situation arrive in my mail in the same 24 hours I feel reluctant to promote the second, but this one is simply too good to gather dust. (Played at 2x speed it’s only 22 minutes!) /1
The other was this eminently sane and human perspective: /2
Both of these are beyond reproach in their factual content, making them precisely the sort of thing that Pravda (ie @YouTube, @Facebook, @LinkedIn) are not happy for you to see. /3
Read 10 tweets
15 Apr
A better analogy than all those "pee-in-your-pants" ones, explaining why masks don't work.
Twitter bans links to an NLM article demonstrating that masks don't work. Creepy. Add an "h" to see it: ttps://
Read 6 tweets
12 Apr
You can’t make it up. There was a time, say 11 months ago, where pointing out that pre-existing immunity was expected and evident earned us that darling label, “Covid denier”. T-cells were “immunological dark matter” and doctors mentioning them faced disciplinary procedures. 1/4
Now even the charlatan Drosten is in on the action, though his every action before this has spoken loudly against the idea. 2/4…
As we drift through two-mask Lala Land and watch lockdowns continue, though we’ve known they don’t work since last year May, the things we’re censored and shouted at for now are even crazier. 3/4
Read 8 tweets
1 Apr
After half a million views, an outpouring of emotional positive responses, no complaints about veracity & 100 likes for every dislike, @pandata19’s BizNews presentation, "The Ugly Truth about the COVID-19 Lockdowns" was deplatformed by YouTube. 1/4…
Censoring speech, let alone true speech, is evil, and YouTube has gone Stalinist. We must fight this darkness. George Washington: “Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.” Please help us to get this message out there. 2/4
In addition to censoring @BizNewsCOM's channel, YouTube saw fit to remove @pandata19's interview of the great Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, hero of the Swine Flu scandal of 2009, which had been up since December. This was one of my favourites. 3/4…
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!