1/n Unpopular opinion here, but stay with me. As noted there is a vaccine hesitancy problem in many countries (as some like to call it). For example, many report that in the USA there is more availability than people wanting to vaccinate.
2/n So what would governments do: "We are going to stay in lockdown because we cannot achieve 'herd immunity' this way", which if you have followed me this last year you know that not to be true, BUT, dont focus on that.
3/n The hesitancy problem is not gonna go away, those that wont take the vax until trial is over, wont take it no matter what you do. Those that already taken it, are not their problem anymore. What about the middle ground.
4/n Those are the ones that they must target, but pushing them to vaccinate would be counterproductive. Luckily game theory provides an alternative. There is a far better and more efficient way for governments and faster for lockdown oriented which cannot find a way to get out.
5/n The solution is to announce: "In 90 days we will open up everything, no restrictions of any kind. You have until then to make up your mind. We will ensure that if you want a vax, you will get it. But after 90 days no lockdown, no masks, everything open."
6/n That solves two things. People like me that understand the risks wont get the vax until trial is VERY OVER, will have their liberties back (light after the tunnel). Vaccinated people that is scared as shit will have to get their act together.
7/n And the hesitancy now becomes a personal choice on how much risk you can bear for yourself (it's not the government problem anymore). This solves the conundrum most governments got into, and they do not find a way out. Tag your representatives so they know this is the way.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@GidMK@WesPegden@pafournier@AlastairMcA30@sdbaral@VPrasadMDMPH 1/n That shouldn't be too difficult. Take a 50% seroprevalence location (my hometown serves quite well), spike based randomized serostudy done less than a month ago. Know the population, 125K inhabitants, 15% percent >60yo. 3 deaths over the entire pandemic below 40yo.
@GidMK@WesPegden@pafournier@AlastairMcA30@sdbaral@VPrasadMDMPH 2/n Therefore, that is 60K (rounding down) infected people, and given our population structure we know that at least 30K of those had been below 40yo. Right? So from 30K infections you got 4 deaths.
@GidMK@WesPegden@pafournier@AlastairMcA30@sdbaral@VPrasadMDMPH 3/n But we can do even better. You know I kinda know the person in charge there (did I mention is my hometown?). You know how many of those had been healthy? I dont want to spoil it, but...
Todavía riendome de los que pensaron que las #restricciones iban a ser por 15 días jajajaja... No puedo dejar de reirme. #argentina
Ahh y ya pasamos a Suecia en muertos por millón y ellos ya pasaron la segunda ola...
Ahora si la población supiera que la forma de minimizar mortalidad es hacer #restricciones diferenciadas por 90 días y abrir todo para menores de 50/60 que tienen super baja mortalidad ya hubieran incendiado todo. Te engañaron como a una colegiala...
Y cuando digo TODO, es TODO... boliches, todo!!! Chau máscaras, chau todo... no queres que los vulnerables se sientan seguros en la calle. Y si vivis con un vulnerable, vos tampoco tendrías que sentirte seguro, así minimizas riesgo.
1/n Epidemiological models are underdetermined. What @pjakma is doing is showing exactly that. You have to fight underdetermination with tooth and nails. I have wrote about this before, but as the video shows with that much variability it is pointless. Are there alternatives?
2/n Yes. There are 2 types of models, exploratory and predictive. Usually your model with fit one category, it is very unlikely your will fit in both. Fitted models help you in the predictive realm, but the key point is to realize that under-determination is a thing.
3/n That forces you to have to diminish the amount of moving parts, and try to remove as many high-dimensional stochastic inputs as possible through averaging. That's the approach we took on our work.
1/n A pedido de un amigo que me la pidió en español (no tengo muchos seguidores que puedan hacer uso) va mi análisis sobre la edad de las hospitalizaciones en AMBA. El original acá:
2/n Un amigo me preguntó muy preocupado hace unos días que hay de verdad sobre todos los médicos que salen a decir que cada vez hospitalizan gente más joven en Argentina/AMBA.
El diagnóstico: "Anecdotitis"
3/n Cuando alguien con entrenamiento científico es confrontado con una 'verdad', lo primero que hace es tratar de saber más al nivel de detalle. Ya se lo que estas pensando. Te digo que los científicos son una especie rara y en peligro de extinción (y no aparecen en televisión).
1/n A friend asked me a few days ago what was true about the saying of medics about younger people being hospitalized more often recently in Argentina.
The results are in and the diagnosis is: "Anecdotitis".
2/n Like any scientists that is confronted with some 'truth', you try to figure out the nitty gritty details of it. I know what you are thinking, but scientists are a pretty rare species nowadays. I would say an endangered species.
3/n The first thing anyone with at least 2 fingers of forehead is to go to the case file and look at the distribution of death. Well, not unexpected AT ALL.
1/n If you are going to call someone an antivaxxer just make sure that the person in question may know *a bit* more than you about the topic in question. And can actually show proof he is NOT. Think once, think twice, THINK before embarrassing yourself!!!
2/n But you know, I may have converted to being an antivaxxer recently (that would be a good escape). I just think that what antivaxxer parent would vaccinated their kid 2 weeks ago on the 5th of April of 2021
3/n Why do I do this? Why do I willingly show the vaccination history? Because I am tired of people that has not done the research to judge in binary terms something that it is not. If you haven't done the research it is on you, not me.