Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
@AtomsksSanakan
Feb 19, 2021 • 29 tweets • 27 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
1/M

Many contrarians cite the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article below from @MartyMakary.

A good rule-of-thumb is to not rely on what WSJ says about science, especially science they find inconvenient for their right-wing ideology.

I'll illustrate why.

wsj.com/articles/well-… Image
2/M

Some background:
- PFR, or population fatality rate, is COVID-19 deaths per capita (i.e. per the total population)
- IFR, or infection fatality rate, is COVID-19 deaths per infected person

Makary gives an IFR of 0.23% for the USA:

archive.is/vsDyt#selectio… Image
3/M

Mackary likely uses John Ioannidis' long-debunked paper:
who.int/bulletin/volum…

That makes no sense since 0.23% is Ioannidis' *global* estimate. The USA's IFR would be higher than that, since IFR increases with age and the USA is older on average

link.springer.com/article/10.100… Image
4/M

Ioannidis also chooses non-representative samples that over-estimate the number of infected people, + thus under-estimate IFR.

He thus gets *impossible* results, since he requires more people be infected than actually exist.



web.archive.org/web/2020121700… Image
5/M

This is the same John Ioannidis (a.k.a. Dr. 40K) who for months used his under-estimated fatality rate to repeatedly under-estimate the number of COVID-19 deaths the USA would suffer.

Yet @MartyMakary relies on him anyway.



archive.is/dT97F#selectio… Image
6/M

The USA's IFR is at least 0.5%, probably more. That's double what Makary claimed.


By Makary's logic, that implies ~30% (or less) infected people, not "roughly two-thirds".




Image
7/M

Makary then gives the typical distortions on "natural immunity". I've already debunked this on another thread, and am fed up with people misrepresenting my field of expertise to suit their ideological agenda. 🙄



archive.is/vsDyt#selectio… Image
8/M

Makary leaves out Manaus having a large 2nd wave (herd immunity would prevent that), + the study in question likely over-estimated the proportion of infected people by using a non-representative sample




archive.is/vsDyt#selectio… Image
9/M

Makary downplays the pandemic's severity by saying "most infections are asymptomatic".
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…

He gives no sound basis for that.

acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…
acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…
web.archive.org/web/2021021801…

jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/ja… Image
10/M

Other issues include:
- vaccine-mediated immunity is often meant to be better than "natural immunity"
- many re-infections would be missed since surveillance doesn't catch all infections




archive.is/vsDyt#selectio… Image
11/M

It's ironic Makory claims herd immunity will be reached by April with >66% of people infected, when he previously peddled debunked work on 10% - 20% infection rates being enough for herd immunity.

That was false hope.



Image
12/M

So WSJ + Makary downplay the severity of the pandemic and peddle false hope to suit their right-wing agenda. They've been doing this for the better part of a year.

People need to stop falling for it. Lives are at stake. 😑



archive.is/vsDyt#selectio… Image
13/M

Makary's claims on T cells also fail. For example, he cites work that under-estimates the number of people with antibodies (i.e. uses a test with low sensitivity).

This has been known for months.




archive.is/vsDyt#selectio… Image
14/M

Makary's insinuation is impossible anyway, since there are places where >65% of people have antibodies. And a co-author of the study was hesitant on its implications.




Image
15/M

Challenge for @MartyMakary's defenders:

In his WSJ piece he says, "roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population has had the infection."
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…

Find reputable evidence of ~220 million people infected in the USA.

@youyanggu won't help:
web.archive.org/web/2021021908… Image
16/M

Re: "Challenge for @MartyMakary's defenders:
[...]
Find reputable evidence of ~220 million people infected in the USA"

USA's CDC won't help



~28 million reported cases * 4.6 = ~129 million infections
covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra…

web.archive.org/web/2021021905… Image
17/M

The two articles below from the New York Times and the Washington Post are much closer to a right answer than is @MartyMakary's opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal.

18/M

Re: "Find reputable evidence of [~67%] infected in the USA"

@MartyMakary's (debunked) source for IFR won't help, since the USA had >500 COVID-19 deaths per million, so 0.57% IFR applies.

His calculation would then give ~26% infected, not ~67%.

who.int/bulletin/volum… Image
19/M

Re: "Find reputable evidence of [~67%] infected in the USA"

Won't get there by combining reported COVID-19 deaths (or excess deaths) with age-specific IFR to calculate the number of people infected.



cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr…

link.springer.com/article/10.100… Image
20/M

h/t @21law

I'd say *temporary* herd immunity (HI) by summer with vaccines, but non-vaccine-mediated infection-based HI won't last.



"A Wall Street Journal op-ed predicts herd immunity by April. Why experts say that's wrong"
wusa9.com/article/news/v… Image
21/M

@HealthFeedback article explaining errors in Makary's WSJ piece, with input from @DiseaseEcology, @BillHanage, @angie_rasmussen, @aetiology, etc.

Overlooked the @aetiology's point on symptomatic re-infection.



healthfeedback.org/evaluation/mis… Image
22/M

The WSJ's Editorial Board (WED) posted a defense of Makary's article.

WSJED's response is politically-motivated nonsense, in line with the denialism they display on other topics like climate science.




archive.is/1JnsW Image
23/M

WSJED treats criticism as censorship + "silencing"
archive.is/NqIKj#selectio…

Free speech doesn't mean a private company is required to be a platform for one's misinformation. Just ask those peddling MMS (a bleach).
Free speech =/= freeze peach

row 7:
Image
24/M

USA's 1st amendment protects against what China's government did.

WSJED creates a false equivalence when it treats that government suppression as being akin to a *company* aptly pointing out misinformation on its platform after consulting experts.

archive.is/1JnsW#selectio… Image
25/M

WSJ's Editorial Board:
- screws up on re-infections, as per part 10/M
- misuses a blood donor study, even though those over-estimate the number of infections
- messes up on Ioannidis' paper, as per parts 3/M to 5M, and 18/M



Image
26/M

WSJ's editorial does not grasp that SARS-CoV-2 cases/day, hospitalizations/day, etc. increasing in Manaus means R (the effective reproductive number) went above 1. That means no herd immunity, by definition; see part 8/M.



archive.is/1JnsW#selectio… Image
27/M

So the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board made introductory-level errors they could've avoided if they did what Facebook did: consult experts.

Not that the Board honestly cares. They value their ideology more than facts.



onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11… Image
28/M

April is upon us, + we don't have nationwide herd immunity (R>1 even with non-baseline restrictions, cases/day increasing, etc.).
ourworldindata.org/explorers/coro…
ourworldindata.org/explorers/coro…
ourworldindata.org/explorers/coro…



@MartyMakary:
🤦‍♂️
wsj.com/articles/well-… Image
29/M

h/t @21law


Makary moving the goalposts to May to avoid admitting he's wrong. 🙄




""[By] April or May, we're going to start seeing gradual slowing," Makary added"
newsweek.com/us-will-reach-… Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Atomsk's Sanakan

Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AtomsksSanakan

Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Feb 23
71/J

I recently got a copy of Dr. Judith Curry's book without buying it myself.

Looking over it confirmed to me that it's largely misinformation.

I'll illustrate that by assessing its claims on COVID-19.



"11.3.1 COVID-19"

amazon.com/Climate-Uncert…
Image
72/J

To reiterate: Curry draws parallels between COVID-19 + climate change.

But some of the sources she cites suggest an ideologically convenient narrative misinformed her.

That becomes clearer when assessing her claims.




Image
73/J

No mention of the misinformation she + other contrarians promoted, and which conflicted with knowledge advances by experts.

(8/J - 12/J, 32J - 36/J, 44/J, 45/J, 63/J, etc.)








Image
Read 23 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Feb 17
1/J

Dr. Judith Curry recommends people read at least the 45-page preview of her new book.

I did.

It's bad enough I wouldn't recommend buying the book.
It's largely contrarian conspiracist misinformation.




amazon.com/Climate-Uncert…
Image
2/J

Many reviews laud the book without addressing whether her claims are accurate, likely because she ways what they want to hear.











netzerowatch.com/all-news/book-…
washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/…
Image
3/J

So I'll address the substance of her claims, with direct quotes of what she said.

That approach exposes her implausible position












realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/…
Image
Read 72 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Aug 30, 2023
PapersOfTheDay

"Executive Summary to the Royal Society report “COVID-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions”"


"Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: [...]"
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…



Image
Jefferson + Heneghan don't like the papers.

Makes sense they wouldn't given their track record, especially Jefferson on the Cochrane mask review he led.







brownstone.org/articles/royal…



cochrane.org/news/statement…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Mar 13, 2023
69/E

A reminder, since there's a resurgence in Musk + right-wing politicians trying to score political points by saying they want Fauci prosecuted:

Musk's dislike of Fauci drove him to post an easily debunked lie (57/E, 56/, 41/)


Image
70/E

Still no apology from Musk for falsely smearing Grady based on untrue things he was told, or that he made up.

"Elon Musk calls British diver in Thai cave rescue 'pedo' in baseless attack"
theguardian.com/technology/201…



thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-mock… Image
71/E

Another good example of the willful ignorance + baseless paranoia underlying Musk's lab leak conspiracism and his criticisms of Fauci.




archive.is/GZ6er#selectio…
archive.is/ughZK#selectio…
archive.is/WWKtc#selectio… ImageImageImage
Read 11 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Dec 12, 2022
1/E

Some illustrations of the pseudoskepticism that overtakes many crypto / tech bros, using the example of Elon Musk's COVID-19 claims.

"My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci"


onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11… Image
2/E

No, neither chloroquine nor hydroxychloroquine worked for SARS-CoV-2.

Fortunately, Fauci recommended neither in March 2020.

9:12 - 14:41 :



Image
3/E

About Sweden...

18 October 2020:
"Sweden at zero deaths Oct 15"


30 October 2020:
"And … Sweden is still right with zero deaths Oct 29"




ourworldindata.org/explorers/coro…

worldometers.info/coronavirus/co… Image
Read 29 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Jun 8, 2022
1/B

Thread on a myth Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) continues to peddle to undermine confidence in public health agencies and to suit his policy agenda.

The myth may undermine responses to future public health emergencies.




stanfordreview.org/the-review-int…
Image
2/B

Some background:

The infection fatality rate (IFR) states the proportion of *SARS-CoV-2-infected* people who die of the disease COVID-19.

The case fatality rate (CFR) states the proportion of *reported cases* who die of COVID-19.

institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an…
Image
3/B

Reporting systems are not perfect, so they sometimes miss infected people. That makes reported cases less than total infections, and thus CFR is higher than IFR.

The WHO was open about this since the early stages of the pandemic:

March 17, 2020:
web.archive.org/web/2020102205…
Image
Read 26 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(