The @aier, the Libertarian think tank on an estate in Massachusetts that offered @MartinKulldorff@SunetraGupta and Jay Bhattacharya a comfy country retreat to write the Great Barrington Declaration clearly states the contents of same:
It advocates MAXIMIZING infection among the allegedly low-risk. aier.org/article/lockdo…. They should ask for their money back from Dr. Bhattacharya who argued today that it recommends trying to slow the spread. It advocates trying to speed it, as is clear from GBD's text.
This is just simply saying one thing when trying to influence policy and the opposite when trying to deflect criticism from scientists.
This was my first meeting with Jay Bhattacharya. @SunetraGupta and @MartinKulldorff are friends and self-described left. Had they asked I would've advised that when a climate-change-denying right-wing thinktank offers a free trip to their estate, they might be suspicious.
That is @aier, beautiful estate and no doubt good food (2:08) and great bowties.
Ayn Rand supporters aier.org/article/unmask… ("Nietzsche for high school students" is the best description I've ever heard; now @benshapiro is Ayn Rand for junior high boys)
Fully entitled to their views of course. They have an infect-most-people-as-fast-as-possible agenda. Delay is bad aier.org/article/delayi…. @MartinKulldorff shares this view, repudiated today by Jay Bhattacharya.
But this extreme view, propounded by Atlas, Trump, and Kulldorff, is what is helping to justify inaction and even blocking action on COVID-19 (testing, tracing, masking -- putting aside commerce restrictions that they so strongly oppose) and will cost lives.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think @realDonaldTrump and @SWAtlasHoover were committed to a policy with no scientific basis and would have dragged the country there regardless. But GBD provided a veneer of respectability for this deliberate subversion of public health
This thread by @AlexBerenson distorts my work in a way that can only be willful, given that others have made the same arguments in the past on twitter and I have clearly refuted them. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1318176…
He takes a commentary I wrote with @ted_h_cohen about Listeria -- a bacterial disease we get typically from food -- that suggested (citing another paper -- this was not original research) that a lack of herd immunity to listeria could be leading to increased case numbers.
(of symptomatic Listeria infection). It also mentioned the idea that rubella vaccines used in the wrong way could increase severe (congenital) rubella through modest amounts of herd immunity that delay but do not prevent infection, increasing its incidence in pregnant women.
This is just crazy. Mainstream experts have been trying to get through with almost no success. But take an out-there position and you get access. Of course take extra precautions for the most vulnerable. But don't relax everything else before evidence these precautions work.
The argument is incoherent if you don't do low-cost low-inconvenience things like universal masking. Surely any rational strategy uses low-downside strategies to reduce transmission in the whole population while shielding the vulnerable.
Two of these scientists, @SunetraGupta and @MartinKulldorff, have long been my friends. But I think they are dead wrong without a demonstrated plan for how such shielding would work. There is no good example in a dense western country.
New chart reveals military’s vast involvement in Operation Warp Speed. Fascinating article. statnews.com/2020/09/28/ope…
Don’t quite understand how source thinks “foot on the neck to make them go go go” is ok to say in 2020 or even, insensitivity aside, makes sense.
Also don’t know how @HHSGov Spox Mango can say with certainty what the vax trial results will be when they are still not unblinded. Every time someone corporate or govt says something like that they should be asked how they know.
usually agree with both @StevenSalzberg1 and @nataliexdean. In this case agree with the cautious view. Even if safety were known (which I don’t think it is for this) RCT r really important for efficacy. Alternatives, which both @nataliexdean & I work on, are full of pitfalls.
The article by @StevenSalzberg1 just gets some things wrong. Published test of eg the Oxford vaccine had 126 and 253 vaccinated, enough to detect adverse events if occur in 2.3% and 1.4% respectively.