Thread by @YossiGestetner

You conclude that if it’s true that Covid-19 was here months sooner then we would notice it from millions dying sooner.

You have it upside down:

The fact that COVID-19 was here months earlier without mass deaths shows that panic policies implemented later caused mass deaths!

https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1333648319235559425

.@trvrb This is besides the point that multiple countries and a few states have concluded that Covid-19 was active many weeks and/or months sooner than thought.

Cool. But why no deaths sooner?

Simple:

No lockdown/panic policies to create delay in care, neglect and deaths.

Basically a scientist is rejecting science/data showing that Covid-19 was raging in the US months earlier because the scientist is pointing to an outcome: Mass deaths seen months later. The scientist does not consider that maybe humans caused the deaths due to panic policies.

Again, there are two data points available:

1. Lab results showing COVID-19 was here months earlier.

2. No mass deaths months earlier.

Scientist @trvrb is dismissing the 1st due to the 2nd without considering that maybe the second is human caused and thus not a contradiction.

Science is science. But what is not scientific is conclusions that people make based on human-generated assumptions.

For example, @trvrb assumes that COVID-19 generates X amount of deaths so if there are no such deaths, he concludes, it can’t be that COVID-19 was around sooner.

We have:

1. Lab-generated science showing that Coronavirus was here months earlier.

2. Human assumptions that Corona generates an x amount of deaths but there were no mass deaths months earlier.

What do we do?

@trvrb throws out the science and sticks with human assumptions.