Sure let’s do this math exercise.
Say, you have 10000 “trees”. The COVID fire is approaching and will get 50% of them if you do nothing.
If you vaccinate them, that 50% is reduced by 95% to 2.5%, so only 250 trees will catch fire instead of 5000.
1/6
Say, you have 10000 “trees”. The COVID fire is approaching and will get 50% of them if you do nothing.
If you vaccinate them, that 50% is reduced by 95% to 2.5%, so only 250 trees will catch fire instead of 5000.
1/6
https://twitter.com/brianholtz1965/status/1398064389421375489
The trees that do catch fire will have, say, a 2% mortality if you don’t use IVM or if IVM can reduce mortality by 83%, a 0.34% mortality.
Of course, nothing is preventing you to use IVM on the vaccinated trees if you believe in its power to reduce mortality.
2/6
Of course, nothing is preventing you to use IVM on the vaccinated trees if you believe in its power to reduce mortality.
2/6
But for the sake of the argument, let’s say we don’t. What is the difference in deaths under the exclusive scenarios of vaccinated vs. IVMed?
So 250 trees caught fire, and 2% or 5 trees will die. 245 will survive but might be scarred by Covid.
3/6
So 250 trees caught fire, and 2% or 5 trees will die. 245 will survive but might be scarred by Covid.
3/6
How about in the IVM scenario? 5000 will catch fire and 0.34% or 17 will die and 4983 will survive but might be scarred by Covid.
Need I go on?
4/6
Need I go on?
4/6
You could use any other infection rate or mortality rate but the relative outcome of 17/5=3.4x more deaths and 4983/245=20x more people with post-Covid syndrome should remain the same.
5/6
5/6
Curious to see if anyone might still think we should wait for trees to burn rather than make them immune to the fire.
6/6
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
