With many empirical studies now showing more modest effects of lockdowns vs. other NPIs, voluntary behavior, and other confounders, the original model concluding large effects is increasingly criticized, incl. a comment in the journal that published it.
1) "we suggest that the model, and its conclusion that all NPIs apart from lockdown have been of low effectiveness, should be treated with caution with regard to policy-making decisions." nature.com/articles/s4158…
2) "Such modelling efforts have deemed lockdown to account for 81% of the reduction in R0, contributing to government policies. Here, we show that these conclusions are unsupported and that policies therefore should not be based on these studies." doi.org/10.1101/2020.0…
3) "The results included in the Nature paper seem to suffer from serious selective reporting, providing the most favorable estimates for lockdown benefit" doi.org/10.1101/2020.0…
4) "infections were in decline before full UK lock-down (24 March 2020) [...] An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R" arxiv.org/abs/2005.02090…
5) "we are concerned that these studies may substantially overstate the role of government-mandated NPI’s in reducing disease transmission due to an omitted variable bias." nber.org/system/files/w…
6) "Although we do not have the code that has been used in the study by Ferguson et al, we know about the values of the R0 and fatality rate used there, which is excessive." journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…
7) "Flaxman et al. concluded that [...] lockdowns in particular - have had a large effect on reducing transmission’.[...] a model that has better fit to the data [...] reduces the estimate of ‘counterfactual’ deaths [...] from 3.2 million to 262,000" medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
8)"These are strong assumptions indeed but woefully misleading, the problem being that they regard interventions, lockdowns in this instance, as fixed treatments in fixed applications hav-ing fixed effects." journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…
9) "It follows from the above that that study provides no information whatsoever as to the actual contribution from all NPI combined to the reduction in transmission" nicholaslewis.org/wp-content/upl…
10) "Despite including details of the contagion and response options, their model is several degrees of abstraction away from what is warranted by the situation." static1.squarespace.com/static/5b68a4e…
Lockdowns work but question is how much vs. milder NPIs and voluntary behavior. Social distancing can be reached by many means.
The model reshaped our thinking in 2020 of lockdown as a superior tool. The 10 papers/reports above suggest that we should rethink this view in 2021.
God tråd der viser effekten af at korrigere for befolkning når man taler om Sveriges år 2020. Den øverst i tråden er ikke, som brugt af bl.a. DR som argument imod den mere åbne svensk politik. Figuren nedenfor er dødelighed korrigeret for befolkning.
Euromomo data (Z-scorer) viser også, at Sverige har haft et hårdt år, men slet ikke der står mål med den måde, det er blevet præsenteret i medierne. euromomo.eu/graphs-and-map…
Her er Oxford Government stringency index til sammenligning, der vurderer omfanget af restriktioner. Der er megte der tyder på, at effekten af restriktioner er blevet overvurderet.
Det skyldes primært, at de tidlige naive modeller, der blev brugt til at vurdere "worst-case", antog at mennesker er ens (homogene). Virkelige befolkninger er heterogene, og det sænker smitteudbredelse og epidemiens størrelse kraftigt. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/65…
"De lande, hvor der er en sådan politisk diskussion om de sundhedsfaglige anbefalinger, klarer sig dårligst i den her pandemi, og det har vi ikke brug for i Danmark." jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE125
Regeringen benytter: 1) forældede scenarier fra foråret 2) meget få embedsfolk m. stor kritik fra forskerne 3) ny epidemilov som *alle* andre partier er imod 4) officiel afvikling af costbenefit pga "folkesundheden"
Handler ikke om blokpolitik men vores informerede demokrati.
Den nye minkvariant har fået regering og myndigheder til at tale om “ny pandemi”. Mette Frederiksen: “devastating consequences” worldwide.”[1] Mølbak: “The worst-case scenario is that we would start off a new pandemic in Denmark”.[2] Mine kommentarer nedenfor.
1. At ”cluster 5”-varianten er en trussel, der kræver nedslagtning af al mink og nedlukning af Nordjylland, hviler på to påstande: A) Varianten kan føre til helt ny pandemi og B) trussel mod vaccine. Påstandene er så usandsynlige, at der er kraftig respons fra forskere [3-7].
2. Bla. siger @stinuslindgreen i denne tråd, at ”En af de varianter, der er opstået i minkbesætninger, viser svækket respons på antistoffer. Altså en reel risiko for at kommende vacciner ikke virker - og en ny pandemi.”
Virus udvikler sig hele tiden. Masser af kendte naturlige varianter i spike proteinet. "As of May 6, 2020, 329 naturally occurring variants in S protein have been reported in public domain." Denne artikel studerer f.x. 80 naturlige S-protein varianter: doi.org/10.1016/j.cell…
Påstande om "en ny pandemi" skal nok ses i det lys.
Det er heller ikke nyt at naturlige varianter i spikeproteinet kan være mere modstandsygtige overfor antistoffer. Fra samme artikel:
"Ten mutations such as N234Q, L452R, A475V, and V483A was markedly resistant to some mAbs"