1/G

I made some threads on how those behind the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD; @gbdeclaration) spread disinformation on COVID-19.





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.

gbdeclaration.org
3/G

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.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
5/G

That led to a higher infection rate in Sweden's healthcare staff, including in nursing homes.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

That increases the change of older people in nursing homes getting infected.



ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
6/G

That higher infection rate led to poor outcomes in Sweden.

And even with that, Sweden was nowhere near achieving the "herd immunity" the GBD aims for. That would require way more infections, with more deaths.



ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-da…
7/G

Sweden's government setup a coronavirus commission to figure out where they went wrong.

The commission noted that Sweden's single biggest mistake was letting a large number of people get infected in the general population

coronakommissionen.com/wp-content/upl…

thelocal.se/20201215/what-…
8/G

Sweden's government learned from that. So they tried to limit community-wide infection during their 2nd wave, instead of just in the "vulnerable".

That contradicts what GBD recommended.



thelocal.se/20201203/swede…

swedishchamber.nl/news/sweden-ba…
9/G

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.

publichealthontario.ca/-/media/docume…
10/G

I have not seen GBD proponents give a means of "focused shielding" that hasn't already failed under conditions with high infection rates.

That's because allowing for more community-wide infection undermines shielding, contrary to what GBD assumes.

11/G

So that's the core set of problems with the Great Barrington Declaration. Following it kills people.

To run through some other problems:

Way too many people would need to be infected to get to herd immunity before a vaccine


12/G

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.


13/G

Many middle-aged, non-elderly people die of COVID-19:
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

And COVID-19 can harm younger people, even if it doesn't kill them. So GBD proponents under-estimate the proportion of people needing shielding.

publichealthontario.ca/-/media/docume…
14/G

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.



bmj.com/bmj/section-pd…
15/G

For more context on the Great Barrington Declaration, see the solid thread below:



16/G

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…

bmj.com/content/371/bm…
17/G

And again:

"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…

[johnsnowmemo.com]
thelancet.com/journals/lance…
18/G

Allowing for high infection rates also aids in the evolution of more dangerous variants of SARS-CoV-2. That's another downside of the GBD's strategy.



19/G

South Korea limited community-wide infections, which helped prevent dangerous virus variants from arising there, as per part 18/G.

Thread below on how southeast Asian countries succeeded by limiting community-wide infection, contrary to the GBD:

• • •

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

24 Feb
1/E

Various southeast Asian nations suffered relatively few COVID-19 deaths per capita, especially in comparison to many "western" nations.

There's been a lot of speculation on why this is.
So this thread will examine some possible explanations.

archive.is/FkAho
2/E

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.

nytimes.com/interactive/20…
bbc.com/news/world-530…
economist.com/graphic-detail…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Read 20 tweets
22 Feb
1/B

The Santa Clara study co-authored by Bendavid, Bhattacharya, Ioannidis, etc. is now out.

Time to once again cover the reasons why it's very wrong.

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

"COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California"
academic.oup.com/ije/advance-ar…
2/B

Let's set aside the funding / conflicts of interest underlying the paper, and other such issues. See @stephaniemlee's insightful reporting on that.

This thread will focus more on the scientific points.

buzzfeednews.com/article/stepha…

buzzfeednews.com/article/stepha…
3/B

Background:

When a virus infects u, your body increases production of proteins known as antibodies, which are usually specific to that virus.

So measuring antibodies lets u estimate who was infected, and from that the infection fatality rate (IFR).

institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an…
Read 19 tweets
19 Feb
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-…
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…
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…
Read 16 tweets
16 Feb
1/Y

Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) lists articles he claims shows lockdowns are not effective. The Great Barrington Declaration exploited this list.

This thread will debunk Cummins' claim, while giving some further context.

thefatemperor.com/published-pape…

3/Y

Cummins responded to @dr_barrett's thread with a video that is... ridiculous:


There's a comment thread rebutting Cummin's response video:


I'll summarize some of the thread's points here.

Read 27 tweets
6 Feb
1/K

A list of those who so under-estimated the fatality rate of COVID-19, that they *require more people be infected than actually exist.*

(it's amazing there are enough people to include in a list like this 🤷‍♂️)

Sunetra Gupta

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths…

2/K

Re: "A list of those who so under-estimated the fatality rate of COVID-19, that they *require more people be infected than actually exist.*"

Nic Lewis

~0.12% of Sweden has now died of COVID-19:
ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-da…
covid19.who.int

judithcurry.com/2020/06/28/the… Image
3/K

Re: "A list of those who so under-estimated the fatality rate of COVID-19, that they *require more people be infected than actually exist.*"

Michael Levitt

archive.is/3IpJF

Image
Read 32 tweets
5 Feb
1/J

Wanted to address some issues in the thread below from another immunologist.

Should be a nice change-of-pace from dealing with obvious nonsense from disingenuous denialists.



2/J

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)



jvi.asm.org/content/95/3/e…

immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/54/e…
3/J

You're not going to get places with >55% seroprevalence with high specificity tests, if you're missing a lot of infections.



66% - 70%: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
74%: icddrb.org/news-and-event…

academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…

ins.gov.co/BibliotecaDigi…
Read 9 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!