Health Nerd Profile picture
14 Dec, 28 tweets, 8 min read
So, I have had a proper read of this document, and I thought it might be worthwhile to actually go through and carefully analyze the document

Let's do some peer-review on twitter 1/n
2/n The document is a brief essay by the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which I've screenshotted here for later reference, because it comes up in the essay:
3/n The essay discusses what the authors call "focused protection", so I think it's worth noting at the outset that the GBD explicitly argues against closures/restrictions of any kind, so that we can build up herd immunity
4/n The essay itself is a bit problematic from the start. The authors poison the well with this straw man - it is simply not true that anyone anywhere is advocating for indefinite lockdowns
5/n The essay then goes on to argue that focused protection is not a laissez-faire or herd immunity approach

Again, let us read their own words from the GBD
6/n Next, we have some statements that are broadly true, and some very spurious statements mixed in. Age is certainly the biggest defining risk from COVID-19, but the statement about children is not quite true, and the "infection survival rate" statement is misleading at best
7/n For children, the authors reference the CDC. Here is the table for influenza vs COVID-19 mortality for 2020 from the CDC THAT THEY REFERENCE

For infants, COVID-19 is more deadly. For 1-4, less deadly, 5-14 about the same, and 15-24 MUCH worse
8/n It is factually inaccurate to state that "Children have lower mortality from COVID-19 than from the annual influenza" as the authors do. For some ages, the risks are similar, but for infants COVID-19 appears to be worse
9/n As to the fatality rate, 0.05% is very misleading. This is somewhat close to the MEDIAN risk of death for <70s, which is 0.04% (at age 35), but given the exponential gradient it rises to about 1 in 100 people by age 60!
10/n Moving on, the authors establish that the harms of lockdown are "manifold and devastating"

Except, well, none of these references really support that statement
11/n For example, reference 11, for "worse cardiovascular disease outcomes" shows a decline in ED presentations and admissions, but not only was this sustained after lockdown the authors found nothing about worse outcomes 👀
12/n The statement that social isolation has led to a greater number of drug-related deaths is referenced to this brief, which actually shows that the drug epidemic in the US has been increasing since January and talks about remedies to that during COVID-19
13/n The statement "Social isolation of the elderly has contributed to a sharp rise in dementia-related deaths around the country" is referenced to this document, which disagrees with that assertion
14/n The authors then reference the problematic JAMA Open paper that we have critiqued here to show that school closures have killed more people than COVID-19

osf.io/9yqxw/
15/n And we finish this paragraph with the suggestion that, since suicidal ideation is high in a survey by the CDC, the excess deaths attributable to young people are probably due to suicide (even though this is not supported by the references cited)
16/n Next, we have this paragraph, which basically says that lockdowns cause older adults to be in constant contact with younger people who are out of work, and therefore die more
17/n This is supported largely by this study. While the work is interesting, the basic methodology - correlating residence statistics from 2018 with some ecological measures of COVID-19 deaths - don't really give us much information
18/n The other statements - that economic harms are inequitable - are both true and a bit pointless

COVID-19 harms are also inequitable

In a system of inequity, EVERYTHING IS INEQUITABLE
19/n Finally, we get to some actual policy proposals for this idea of "focused protection"

I, for one, am unimpressed by these
20/n They range from obvious things that every aged care home in the world is already doing (i.e. staff rotations) to obvious nonsense (i.e. temporary accommodations for older people - this is just creating aged care homes of a different sort)
21/n Scientifically, what we have in this document is a mixture of facts and fiction, with some very misleading language thrown in
22/n Logically, the document is fairly incoherent, and ignores some basic realities of the COVID-19 situation 😕
23/n For example, we've shown that at at age 60 the death rate from COVID-19 is 1 in 130. Does "focused protection" extend to this age group?

If so, that's >25% of the entire United States 🤷‍♂️
24/n And, not to belabor the point, but the GBD authors have explicitly called for a herd immunity approach constantly for the last few months. They may not like the moniker, but it is transparently their aim
25/n Moreover, the authors go on about the secondary harms of lockdown, but completely ignore the secondary harms of large COVID-19 epidemics, which have been estimated to be just as bad if not worse
26/n Because some people will inevitably say that I'm calling for lockdowns here, I should point out that I'm not, but that any scientific evaluation of good public health policy requires us to be transparent about the facts
27/n This document instead obfuscates and misleads, in a very deceptive way. We should discuss the pros and cons of govt action, but as a starting point that requires us to, for example, acknowledge that COVID-19 is pretty dangerous even for relatively young people
28/n Worth noting that this thread is *not* a review of the GBD itself. The GBD does not cite evidence and is clearly not intended as a scientific document, and as such is impossible to really review except from a political perspective

• • •

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

Keep Current with Health Nerd

Health Nerd 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!

PDF

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 @GidMK

14 Dec
Would be interesting to see the child's perspective here, because of nothing else there are many signs that the author is not a very reliable narrator
For example, the author says they are totally accepting but look at the language here

Both a bit offensive and some definite red flags
The author claims to want to support their child in making the right decision for themselves, but given that the child apparently identifies as a trans boy, but they've consistently identified them as a cis girl, it seems clear what decision the author considers the best choice
Read 4 tweets
13 Dec
People have asked about these, so here's a non-exhaustive list of pretty obviously flawed papers published in these leading journals this year
Kicking off, a research letter in JAMA that was pretty useless as evidence (including not even running a hypothesis test)

Next, JAMA opthalmology with "glasses protect against COVID-19" except the evidence was literally nonexistent

Read 11 tweets
9 Dec
Lockdowns have mostly not been associated with a large increase in suicide rates: a thread of evidence (CW: suicide, mental health) 🧵
Since this has been a major talking point throughout the pandemic, I thought I'd collate the now quite large evidence-base showing that suicide rates have mostly remained steady during lockdowns/COVID times
1. Queensland, Australia

Slight decrease in suicide rates after emergency announced, no statistical change over lockdown vs previous years thelancet.com/journals/lanps…
Read 13 tweets
8 Dec
Big news! Our systematic review and meta-analysis of the age stratified IFR of COVID-19 with @BillHanage, Andy Levin, and others has now been published in the European Journal of Epidemiology

link.springer.com/article/10.100…
The key figure from the paper - your risk of death from COVID-19 goes up exponentially by age:

1 in 50,000 at age 20
1 in 1,500 at age 40
1 in 130 at age 60
1 in 12 at age 80 Image
The other big thing we found was that the age breakdown of places almost entirely explained (~90%) the observed variance in population IFR Image
Read 4 tweets
7 Dec
Despite this story going massively viral (because it is about penises) I reckon it's worth pointing out that the evidence or this statement seems to be mostly theoretical
The only scientific paper referenced that I can find anywhere is this piece from July that basically says that there are plausible pathways for COVID-19 to cause ED so we should watch out for it

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32661947/
I mean, sure, the pathways seem plausible, but imo the time to be really worried about something is when we've got evidence that it is a problem
Read 4 tweets
6 Dec
For those who are interested, the largest clinical trial to date has thus far not shown a benefit for vitamin D supplementation to treat severe COVID-19

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
That being said, the numbers are still pretty small and I don't think we can make any definite statements either way at this point
That being said, the study looks impressively solid, and this is some truly beautiful honesty wrt sample size
Read 5 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!