Mr. Baber provides a well supported critique of gov't C19 policies and actions. He displays good working knowledge of facts which I would expect of an MPP who takes his job seriously. I have a few additional thoughts to aid this critique. 1/
https://twitter.com/Roman_Baber/status/1350150473706303490
The modeling by any standard has been wildly inaccurate. There are two main reasons for this. 1) the model itself is incorrectly constructed or 2) the underlying assumptions are inaccurate. Mr. Baber's information reminds me that both are likely the case. 2/
For example, the chart highlights a focus on asymptomatic transmission. This is a fringe concept. If present, and that is a big "IF", it's extremely low and not at the levels noted. This concept remains highly controversial and experimental support is near nonexistent. 3/
Why is a fringe concept, along with the ever controversial Ro, been baked into a model and relied upon. I suspect its centers on model construction and the author's preconceived thoughts. Model design isn't trivial or an after thought. 4/
Modeling viral transmission in humans is very difficult. Many parameters are unknown and validative experimental data is largely unavailable. This is a dangerous way of modeling and shouldn't drive gov't policy. This is a house built on a foundation of sand. 5/
Ontario is one year into its C19 response. We have a mountain of experimental data that should be driving gov't policy. The evidence is in, so use it!! It is deeply wrong to rely on theory. If Ontario's science panel can't understand this, they should be dismissed. End.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
