On this thread I'll go over some reasons why the GBD itself is nonsense
2/G
GBD's main point is "focused protection"; i.e. strategies that limit infection risk among older people + others at greater risk of dying from COVID-19, while allowing less vulnerable people to live with less restrictions.
An obvious problem with that is infection can spread from people less at risk of dying from COVID-19, to people at greater risk of dying from COVID-19.
So allowing the non-vulnerable to get infected places the vulnerable at risk.
So one protects the "vulnerable" by shifting how the "non-vulnerable" behave. The same principle applies in vaccination, including for pathogens besides SARS-CoV-2. We often vaccinate those at ↓ risk, because it indirectly protects those at ↑ risk.
Those behind the GBD illegitimately downplay how many people would die from their policy, by repeatedly under-estimating the proportion of infected people who die of COVID-19.
The GBD is an ideologically-motivated document from people who illegitimately downplayed COVID-19 for months to suit their opposition to particular policies.
It's denialist nonsense on par with tobacco industry propaganda.
Some further context on the risks of high infection rates:
"Indeed, even if an outbreak is mainly concentrated among younger people, it may be very difficult to prevent the virus from spreading among older adults [141]." link.springer.com/article/10.100…
"These findings support the need for comprehensive preventive measures to help reduce the spread of the virus, even in young or middle-aged adults" sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
There are at least 3 types of explanation for what's occurring in various southeast Asian countries:
1) insufficient testing that misses many infections and/or misses many COVID-19 deaths 2) lower number of infections 3) lower proportion of infected people die of COVID-19
3/E
For explanation 1:
It's unlikely their testing misses more deaths, since their excess deaths don't outpace their reported COVID-19 deaths more than in many 'western' countries.
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
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
Potholer54 made a video rebutting Cummins' points, @theresphysics corrected Cummins' misrepresentation of his research, and @dr_barrett made a rebuttal thread as well:
Serology isn't missing many asymptomatic + pauci-symptomatic infections, once one adjusts for sensitivity based on calibration (long-term sensitivity is better for anti-spike vs. anti-nucleocapsid)