Thread by @tomaspueyo

Here's a step-by-step take on the assertions of @MartinKulldorff (of the Great Barrington Declaration) criticizing #ZeroCovid

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1353699699887403008

1. Disrespectful and polarizing
He calls us "lockdowners" as if he was trying to demean us. That does not sound like a productive way to have a fact-driven conversation (which he claims to support).

2. His understanding of what he criticizes is shallow.
I'm not a "lockdowner". I hate lockdowns. They have a very specific use in some cases, but Western countries have used them nilly-willy. Their failure was to not use the right tools (fences, test-trace-isolate..)

3. He does not think in terms of ROI
Here he compiles collateral damage to argue against lockdowns but that collection is biased. It's the negatives without the +. No summarizing ROI (eg, mortality rates went down in early lockdown countries).

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352565481975812?s=20

The Economy section of that website is surprisingly shallow. It takes just one example (the UK)

4. It also mixes correlation with causation. That same section states: "There were lockdowns and jobs went down, therefore lockdowns destroyed jobs".

Conveniently, proper science is being published on this topic. Extract:

nber.org/system/files/w…

5. He does not apply his own principles.
He states we need to think about the long term, not the short term. He does not quote Long Covid.

He does quote an article... from May 2020! So much for long-term analysis.

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352567247859712?s=20

6. He does not check his sources.
That article he quotes was written by Prof. Giesecke, who as an ally to Tegnell (and his former boss) was instrumental in the Swedish strategy that has more than 10xed the mortality rate in Sweden vs. its neighbors, without an economic gain.

7. Equity
I agree with him on this one. The pandemic has affected low-income ppl the most. We should have had more wealth redistribution and more protection for the elderly. The very young should probably be able to go to school most of the time

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352570368413696?s=20

8. He replaces science with emotion when it's convenient
The plight that emerging economies have gone through in the pandemic is devastating, both economically and in terms of measures that don't work as well as in developed economies, for a lower benefit

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352572444577794?s=20

As such, most of these economies should have released lockdowns after they were shown to not work in poor, high-density areas.

The decrease in demand, however, is caused not by lockdowns, but by the depression in economic activity in an uncontrolled epidemic

9. He criticizes something he doesn't understand
It sounds like he defends that #ZeroCovid means constant lockdowns (which we agree are terrible). Quite the opposite! ZeroCovid requires much shorter lockdowns, like in SK TW NZ AU SG CI...

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352573958713344?s=20

10. Defending strategies with no empirical evidence
He proposes a strategy that only focuses on protecting the elderly while letting the virus run in the wild. But:
i. Sweden tried it and miserably failed
ii. Nobody else has tried it and succeeded

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352575967784960?s=20

iii. It's like communism: It sounds great in theory but breaks down in practice. How do you protect the elderly for years from a single infection from all their family members and caretakers (who have no training in these matters)?

11. Confirmation bias: avoiding empirical evidence that's in front of his nose.

How is test-trace-isolate counter-productive when all the most successful countries do it? TW SK SG NZ...

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352578341789699?s=20

12. Mixing personal and public healthcare.
A case is only a case if a person is sick... For illnesses that don't spread socially!

https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352580246003713?s=20

13. Reasoning issues
In this article, the argument is:
- Testing identifies who carries COVID
- Kids can carry COVID
- Govs close schools when kids carry COVID
- But kids don't die of COVID
- Therefore, govs should not test kids
!!!

Fallacies:
- When kids are sick and are isolated, it's not for their safety, it's to avoid spread in the community (whether that works or is worthwhile is a different debate)
- If govs close schools when there's outbreaks, the cause is not the testing. The cause is the policy

In fact, I respect @MartinKulldorff. He has a set of facts that he processes as best he can to provide the solutions he thinks are right.
We do the same thing. Our facts and processing are different and lead to different conclusions.

We also agree in nearly everything. Nobody wants lockdowns. #ZeroCovid just thinks the way to stop them is a good, quick lockdown, combined with a set of other measures afterwards, already proven by countries like SK TW NZ
He thinks it's impossible; we should just give up

The details of that impossibility are where the true debate should happen. It should be a fact-driven, non-emotional, constructive debate that I'd be happy to have.

Mankind critically needs a process to help humans think together more efficiently.