Share this page!

Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
Twitter logo
11 Apr, 4 tweets, 2 min read
How many times have you heard excuses of why the West couldn't control COVID? Only islands, only authoritarian regimes...

Alternative interpretation:
To be clear, I'm not saying it was sufficient to do test-trace-isolate well to control the virus. But it was necessary: without it, you couldn't succeed.

The countries who did test-trace-isolate well also did other things, notably all have a good fence.
nytimes.com/interactive/20…
My next article will look at the track record of countries during the pandemic. Sign up to get it.
tomaspueyo.substack.com/p/subscribe
One addition: most ppl are focusing on the contact tracing. That has not been great, but it hasn’t been the worst part.

The worst part has been the isolations and quarantines. None of these countries mandated and enforced them for the sick & contacts.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Tomas Pueyo

Tomas Pueyo 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 @tomaspueyo

Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
30 Mar
The Minto Pyramid is a great primer for compelling arguments. Glad you're propagating it, @lennysan!

You also share a very interesting comparison with storytelling, but I think it has fascinating misconceptions worth exploring. Let's do it!
This is the email you propose

I think it can be improved:
1. Your setup is unnecessary (everybody shares that context)

2. The rest is mostly about the pbm. That part is strong and well structured. But 95% of your email is about the problem, while you state it's about resolution
3. You're missing a "midpoint", WHY this problem exists and hasn't been solved yet (recent change in resource alloc? Process broke?)

4. Your solution is 1 line but doesn't give confidence that it will solve the pbm: no root cause, no reason why it will solve the pbm
Read 14 tweets
Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
28 Mar
“This time it’s different, suuure.”

Some ppl make fun of those who say new technologies (like blockchain or AI today) change everything. They counter that ppl always say “This time, it’s different”, but they’re always wrong

Tell that to 19th century rural workers vs machines
Tell that to WWI generals sending their troops to be mauled by machine guns.

Tell that to the Catholic Church when the printing press broke it.

Tell that to the feudal knights made irrelevant by gunpowder.

Tell that to the Gauls when they saw Romans for the 1st time
Tell that today to cab drivers around the world
Travel agents
Western manufacturing employees
Yellow pages publishers
Encyclopedia salespeople
Those who laughed at COVID
Read 4 tweets
Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
26 Mar
Hanlon’s Razor is wrong.

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

The right aspect: When you disagree with other ppl, it’s very common to assume it’s because of their malice, and it’s usually wrong.

But stupidity isn’t the answer either
Ppl might have:
Different goals
Different incentives
Different data
Different experiences
Different assumptions
Different aspects of the same conclusion highlighted
Different processing of the same info.
A different processing of the same info might be better or worse.

If better, you might assume they disagree with you because of malice or stupidity, when in fact you’re just wrong.

If they have worse processing, it might be lack of training, youth, tiredness...
Read 5 tweets
Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
22 Mar
Bravo @NicoMartinFC pour ce prix qui célèbre votre démarche scientifique!

Cette semaine, c'est l'anniversaire de l'article où vous m'attaquiez. C'est une bonne occasion pour l'analyser en détail, sans revanchisme, pour mieux comprendre les nuances de la démarche scientifique.
🧵
Intro
L'article commence par la conclusion, qu'il communique avec un jugement personnel, soutenu par une rhétorique agressive.

Démarche scientifique: 0
Rhétorique: 3
Fourchette
Mon article original avait été publié le 10 Mars. Vu que les infectés tardent environ 2-4 semaines à mourrir, on peut estimer les infections en France le 10 Mars en fonction des morts 2-4 semaines plus tard (500 - 10.000).

Avec un taux de létalité de ~1%...
Read 24 tweets
Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
16 Mar
Science: Beware, the B117 variant is now predominant in Europe! Let’s vaccinate! Quickly!
EU: Yes, but blood clots.
Sc: Same in the test groups as in controls, right?
EU: Hmm... Just in case
Sc: Hasn’t the UK vaccinated *millions* with that vaccine?
EU: We can’t risk it
👇
Sc: What about the 1000s who will die of COVID?
EU: No worries, we’re going to lock down again
Sc: But that’s going to destroy the economy *again*
EU: Sometimes we need to make sacrifices
Sc: But not clot sacrifices
EU: Duh
Sc: OK so let me get this straight.
You hear some blood clots, which are to be expected just by chance when you’re vaccinating millions, and you decide to stop vaccines, just in case, to prevent them.

Meanwhile you stop vaccinating, which will kill many more, create a new wave of deadlier B117,...
Read 5 tweets
Tomas Pueyo Profile picture
11 Mar
Who should you trust?

The government? An influencer? A think tank? The CDC? Experts? What does “expert” even mean?

First, you should trust yourself. Everybody else might be wrong or have an agenda

But sometimes you might be wrong / be biased/ lack expertise. What then?
We then say “trust experts”. But which one? You can find an “expert” for any opinion.

What is an expert?
Traditionally, it’s a credentialed person or one named to a position of authority. Both of these things are the same.

A credential is just other ppl vouching for you
If you have a PhD, it’s because you passed some tests made by other ppl who also have PhDs, who got theirs through other PhDs. A PhD is trustworthy insofar as the chain of previous PhDs is.

An authority figure is legitimate only insofar as those naming her are legitimate.
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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @tomaspueyo has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @tomaspueyo!

Read all threads by @tomaspueyo