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
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
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
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…
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
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
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