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).
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
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
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...
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
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...
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What countries turned around their strategy?
Several. My favorite is Singapore:
It failed with its Fences and its test-trace-isolate programs in dormitories, but updated them and was able to control the virus
The best lens to understand QAnon is as a cult: The 1st massive one to be born fully through social media. It is designed for Persuasion, and uses the best tools from cults.
1. Consistency
If you know a bit about Persuasion, you’ll recognize Consistency at play: Once ppl are down a path, they want to keep walking it. That’s why ppl stay in relationships or jobs they hate, for example.
If you're 20 and want to get married by 30, how many ppl should you date?
Math has an answer for you. 🧵
It's hard.
On one side, you need to spend some time learning the quality of your potential partners.
On the other, you nee time to snatch the best candidate.
Too little exploration, and you might marry a dud.
Too little exploitation, and you might let the Right One pass.
This is a type of logic problem called explore-exploit.
The exploration is the time you need to learn about the best solution, and the exploitation period is the time you spend finding the solution once you know what to look for.
It sounds to me like the debate about free speech is mixing 2 things completely different: The letter & spirit of the law. I don't think that's the right debate. So let's look at Trump, Social Networks, the future of speech, and much more. 🧵
1. The 1st amendment protects PRIVATE entities from the GOV.
That means you can say whatever you want without risking penalties from the gov. That's it.
You don't get to be heard. Others don't have a duty to listen. You're free to scream in the void.