Thread by @GidMK

A few people have asked me to do this, and I always like to be consistent

The Great Barrington Declaration is unscientific nonsense. What about the John Snow Memorandum (JSM)

Some peer-review on twitter 1/n

https://twitter.com/Mikko_He/status/1343901657856430089

2/n The JSM is here, please do have a look and read if you are interested:

johnsnowmemo.com

Full disclosure: I agree with the sentiment, but I rarely sign petitions and did not do so with the JSM

3/n The JSM is basically a call to action to implement public health responses to COVID-19, particularly in Europe and the US

The specific examples cited are places with very good control

4/n ...except for Japan! JSM was published in October - it appears that their strategy has since become less effective

5/n So, the science

The first paragraph here is just boring facts as they were on the 12/10/2020

6/n The next paragraph has these statements:

1 - COVID-19 is infectious+novel
2 - COVID-19 IFR>flu IFR
3 - some people have long-term symptoms
4 - unclear how long immunity lasts
5 - reinfections happen
6 - we can reduce transmission
7 - the WHO wants to reduce transmission

7/n Statement 1 is referenced to this July paper, which supports the assertion that COVID-19 is infectious, spreads through contact, and is novel

8/n Statement 2 is linked to this paper, and is demonstrable fact. I myself have also replicated this finding in our COVID-19 IFR by age paper

link.springer.com/article/10.100…

9/n Statement 3 is, as phrased, true but potentially arguable. There are clearly some people who experience long-lasting symptoms after COVID-19. We do not yet know how many. The reference does support this

10/n So we know that some people experience long-term symptoms after COVID-19. It is almost certain that COVID-19 in many cases causes these symptoms. But it is arguable in the sense that the causal attribution has not been 100% demonstrated

11/n Statement 4 is a clear and obvious fact. We do not know how long immunity to COVID-19 will last after infection. It may be a forever, but based on other coronaviruses it is likely to be <5 years

The reference again supports this

12/n Statement 5 is again a fact. Reinfections happen, and the reference is a case study of one of these. How often this happens is still unknown

13/n Statement 6+7 are broadly true, but pretty general stuff. We know that some combination of interventions can drive case numbers down and that the WHO supports this, it is the specific interventions and more importantly the long-term that are debated

14/n Thus far, there is not a single factual inaccuracy in the JSM, and even the debatable points are pretty on the mark (the debate is more about wording than anything else)

15/n Next, we have this sentence that is probably the most contentious one in the document

The rest of the paragraph is obvious fact, but were lockdowns "essential"?

16/n This is the only place where I think you could realistically argue with the statements made in the JSM. The references support the point, but aren't perfect themselves (they are basically models that show some benefit to lockdowns)

17/n We know that lockdowns reduce transmission of COVID-19, the question is whether the marginal benefit of various interventions is/was worth the cost in terms of economic/social harm

18/n I thoroughly respect the JSM authors, and I don't disagree, but I think whether the benefits outweighed the costs is perhaps more of a social decision than a scientific one

19/n Even if we could demonstrate that lockdowns saved millions of lives, there are some who would argue for political and other reasons that they were bad

So I'm not entirely sure that saying these interventions were "essential" is strictly factual

20/n They may have been essential from the public health perspective, but ours is not the only perspective out there

21/n Moving on, we have these statements about herd immunity. This is not referenced, but is decidedly true as I myself have written gidmk.medium.com/the-facts-abou…

gidmk.medium.com/herd-immunity-…

22/n Moving on, we have similar arguments to those I made in the above blogs, but more succinct, along with a few restatements of the above already referenced points (i.e. LongCOVID)

23/n We also have this statement. It is not referenced, but is very easily documented in every serology study on COVID-19. Have a look at the references for our IFR by age paper if you're interested

24/n Lastly, we have the call to action, citing Vietnam, Japan, and NZ as examples of what to do to AVOID lockdown in the future

Yes, you read that right

25/n Indeed, the JSM authors argue specifically that lockdowns may have been justifiable in the face of a massive, out-of-control epidemic, but that (in Oct) the best way forward was decisive action to prevent another lockdown

26/n So, we're at the end. There are no factual inaccuracies per se in the JSM that I could find, and the references all support the statements

27/n There are definitely two statements that are arguable, although I personally think that they are reasonable to say. Realistically, the difference between "essential" and "useful/necessary" is more semantic than scientific

28/n I would say that the JSM is basically a scientific document with a call to action in it

In contrast, as I've explained before, the GBD is simply an unscientific piece of political propaganda

29/n Comparing the two is an interesting exercise, because even at face value they are amazingly different. GBD does not cite any evidence, and the only specific statement it makes about science (re: herd immunity) is wrong

30/n In contrast, JSM is filled with factual, scientific statements that are referenced so you can check for yourself