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-…
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-…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1358035802400428032
web.archive.org/web/2020121700…
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…
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.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1271093944605122561
archive.is/dT97F#selectio…
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".
The USA's IFR is at least 0.5%, probably more. That's double what Makary claimed.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1320159233242025984
By Makary's logic, that implies ~30% (or less) infected people, not "roughly two-thirds".
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1347326520562479105
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1347469516733878272
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1352433880452767744
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…
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. 🙄
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1357574752123166721
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
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…
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
https://twitter.com/CovidSerology/status/1308462766177484800
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1357178436658339842
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
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…
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…
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…
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
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1346933484326150144
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1284545152103657476
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/MartyMakary/status/1259222804073009152
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341824609734291457
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…
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. 😑
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1362839892070461441
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
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…
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.
https://twitter.com/CovidSerology/status/1294640133250019328
https://twitter.com/bealelab/status/1294313555706236929
archive.is/vsDyt#selectio…
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/marcus_buggert/status/1323700827723337728
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1357563893397270528
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1357565989844582401
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…
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…
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…
Re: "Challenge for @MartyMakary's defenders:
[...]
Find reputable evidence of ~220 million people infected in the USA"
USA's CDC won't help
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1287542476216172544
~28 million reported cases * 4.6 = ~129 million infections
covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra…
web.archive.org/web/2021021905…
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1363163925131390981
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…
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…
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…
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.
https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1364756577543094279
cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr…
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
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…
h/t @21law
I'd say *temporary* herd immunity (HI) by summer with vaccines, but non-vaccine-mediated infection-based HI won't last.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1353860985426161665
"A Wall Street Journal op-ed predicts herd immunity by April. Why experts say that's wrong"
wusa9.com/article/news/v…
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…
@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.
https://twitter.com/HealthFeedback/status/1366671159002030081
healthfeedback.org/evaluation/mis…
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
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.
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1364750286833655811
https://twitter.com/profamirattaran/status/1364761909858197510
archive.is/1JnsW
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:
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:
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1259267627471507456
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…
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…
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
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
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341289587998601218
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341288191249297408
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…
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.
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1294443485710360576
archive.is/1JnsW#selectio…
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…
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.
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/891040491214688257
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
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-…
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…
https://twitter.com/JHowardBrainMD/status/1377409183289470976
@MartyMakary:
🤦♂️
wsj.com/articles/well-…
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-…
h/t @21law
https://twitter.com/21law/status/1378557953628835840
Makary moving the goalposts to May to avoid admitting he's wrong. 🙄
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1377432313248632835
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1378348061072711681
""[By] April or May, we're going to start seeing gradual slowing," Makary added"
newsweek.com/us-will-reach-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
