It is perfectly reasonable to describe negative consequences of govt action like lockdowns, however it is totally nonsensical to compare this to life as normal when in reality the alternative is an out of control epidemic
If you pretend, in the face of all evidence, that there are no negative economic and social outcomes that can be attributed to a massive rise in COVID-19 cases, then you are just being intellectually dishonest
Moreover, I think there's a matter of scale that people don't really understand - despite the enormous ongoing epidemic in the United States, it's unlikely that more than 20% of the country has been infected with COVID-19
The epidemic could still take months/years to resolve!
In England, the Office for National Statistics estimated recently that just over 1% of the country was infected with COVID-19 over the course of a week, meaning that it could take over a year of this level of economic disruption to get back to anything approaching normal 😕
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing that I rarely see mentioned is the context for a "herd immunity" style strategy of doing nothing at all about the pandemic
In particular, how long will it take?
The REACT studies from the UK offer some information on this. Recently, they have estimated ~100,000 people being infected a day, with a robust estimate of 6% population prevalence prior to this outbreak imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial… imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial…
Some simple calculus, then, gives us about 4 million infections prior to September, in a population of about 67 million
You have to wonder at what point all of the people proudly proclaiming over the last 4 months that Sweden is at herd immunity will admit that they were wrong
Should be noted for the people who misunderstand - herd immunity is about CASES. By definition, if you have a massive epidemic, the population is not at herd immunity
A simple way to explain this is the common cold. No one claims that we have "herd immunity" to the cold, despite it being relatively mild. It's just an endemic disease
A thought I've been having a lot recently - everyone says that waves 2 & 3 of COVID-19 have been markedly different from the first
This is often used to support the idea that COVID-19 is getting less deadly
But is it true? 1/n
2/n If you look at the cases/deaths data from the US, it certainly seems true. Far MORE confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the second wave, but far FEWER deaths
At first glance, looks like COVID-19 is getting less lethal!
3/n Problem is, we know that testing has changed enormously over the year, especially in the US
WAY more people are being tested now than in the earlier months of the year, which makes the cases/deaths equation a bit useless
A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand herd immunity
Immunity is about CASES, not DEATHS or HOSPITALIZATIONS
Even if deaths were to decrease, if cases are rising it is not herd immunity BY DEFINITION
To a great extent, I think this is because people have consistently been sold herd immunity as an end to the pandemic, even if that doesn't really make sense
The point is, even if we were to decrease the fatality rate of COVID to the level of the common cold, if cases are still increasing it's not population/herd immunity
Monthly data from the Victorian Suicides Register shows that until the start of September 2020, there had been no increase in suicides in the state compared to previous years coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/…
Of course, this does not preclude a large increase in September/October, but at least using the best current evidence there does not appear to be evidence to support the claim that policy has driven a direct increase in suicides
I have just found the more recent Coroners report showing that this trend persisted in September - again, it is possible that there was a large increase in Oct, but currently no evidence of an increase in suicide rates in Victoria in 2020 coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/…
I always think that abortion policy is the place where feelings trump facts most, because we know that
a) banning abortions DOESN'T reduce abortions
b) contraception DOES reduce abortions
c) abortion bans are very harmful
And yet people still advocate for bans
None of this is controversial in the slightest, and indeed is very well-demonstrated. The problem is that inducing an abortion isn't necessarily hard, it's inducing one SAFELY that is the problem
I always find this abbreviated list of abortion techniques from the WHO enlightening on the topic. These are things that women try in the absence of safe abortion provision
Examples include inserting knives into the uterus, drinking turpentine, and jumping off a roof