Great thread on how massively difficult "shielding the vulnerable" would be in practice. Far harder than using public health measures to control the virus.
None of the "shielding" advocates are grappling seriously with this.
Shielding is not a plan; it's a sleight of hand.
None of the "shielding" advocates are grappling seriously with this.
Shielding is not a plan; it's a sleight of hand.
https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1317046902605729792
I have yet to see any of the herd immunity/shielding crowd lay out an affirmative agenda that reckons with:
1) how many would need to be shielded
2) what that shielding would entail
3) what support would be provided
4) at what cost
5) how the vulnerable would be identified
1) how many would need to be shielded
2) what that shielding would entail
3) what support would be provided
4) at what cost
5) how the vulnerable would be identified
As the thread persuasively lays out, tens of millions would need to be shielded, requiring an ambitious plan to protect them while providing massive social and economic support at tremendous cost.
The Barrington crowd proposes nothing of the kind.
The Barrington crowd proposes nothing of the kind.
Instead, they talk vaguely about reducing nursing home visits and delivering groceries to retirees, as if those are the only people at risk, and those are the only measures that would be needed. 
This is not a shield-the-vulnerable strategy, it is a sacrifice-the-vulnerable strategy.
The Great Barrington crowd are not proposing a way to protect the vulnerable at scale, they're proposing to write them off while everyone else gets on with their lives.
It's grotesque.
The Great Barrington crowd are not proposing a way to protect the vulnerable at scale, they're proposing to write them off while everyone else gets on with their lives.
It's grotesque.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
