Incredible. An economist delights in mocking the possibility that a cheap and all but harmless drug is responsible for *spectacular* reductions in Covid-deaths everywhere it has been tried. Why? Because other measures were also applied.
At worst: (drug+measures) = rapid success
At worst: (drug+measures) = rapid success
https://twitter.com/AndreasShrugged/status/1401313171386814471
This is true, even if the drug is ineffective.
If there was no *other* evidence the drug worked, you would indeed have to wonder if it was a real contributor to the effect. But, in this case, there is LOTS of other evidence that the drug works, and a clear mechanism of action.
If there was no *other* evidence the drug worked, you would indeed have to wonder if it was a real contributor to the effect. But, in this case, there is LOTS of other evidence that the drug works, and a clear mechanism of action.
And there is LOTS of evidence that the other measures are inadequate on their own.
Consider this: lock-downs without this drug are likely to have multiple effects, some negative, decreasing spread BETWEEN homes and increasing it WITHIN--unless you add the drug as prophylaxis.
Consider this: lock-downs without this drug are likely to have multiple effects, some negative, decreasing spread BETWEEN homes and increasing it WITHIN--unless you add the drug as prophylaxis.
So why are people so glib about the possibility this drug works? Who proposes a drinking game belittling the deaths of strangers and scientists trying to prevent them. What the hell is going on with every story connected to COVID?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
