What are those "smart, comprehensive measures" people are talking about exactly and what purposes would they serve? Those are just empty slogans that people keep using to perpetuate the myth that policy could save us from COVID-19. Sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing.
She's talking about containment measures to "buy us time". But buy us time for what exactly? I've read some people talk about using that time to make a vaccine tailored against Omicron and inject people with it, but this is a fantasy. How can people not see this?
Even if regulatory agencies didn't get in the way, which they almost certainly would, it would take months before it could even be produced in large volumes. And then what? After almost a year, we still haven't managed to convince a lot of people to get the original vaccine!
But let's suppose that we somehow pull this off. What then? For all we know, there might be another variant taking over by then, descended from a different lineage, against which this vaccine would not be optimized. How long are we going to be doing this?
Suppose that we're lucky and no other variant emerge before we have injected that vaccine into enough people. (I'm setting aside the fact that even current vaccines will likely protect well against severe disease even with Omicron.) Eventually there will be another variant!
Are we supposed to use "smart, comprehensive measures" and put our life on hold every time a new variant emerges that *might* evade prior immunity or suck in some other way? This is going to keep happening, there is no end to this process, so that's complete lunacy!
Don't even get me started with all the alleged panaceas that smart people regularly fall in love with — mass testing, "contact-tracing", etc. — even though there is usually not a shred of evidence they actually help. That's not even the important point.
The important point is that SARS-CoV-2 is not going anywhere, it's going to keep mutating, there will always be more waves and people are always going to die from it. So what is the point? You can't "buy time" to win a race when there is no finish line!
The population is no longer immunologically naive and, as more people get vaccinated and/or infected, the IFR will fall and SARS-CoV-2 won't be so bad anymore. This is already happening. So let's just encourage people to get vaccinated and move on!
I don't think people realize that, even in the worst case scenario (say COVID-19 kills 50,000/year when endemic in a country like France), this would only mean that we'd lose a few years worth of mortality reduction at previous trends. It sucks but it's not the end of the world!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's pretty insane that, with a paltry TFR of 1.8, France is nevertheless ahead of any other developed nation with the exception of Israel. I hadn't realized that it had fallen so much in the US, which used to be another developed country where it was holding up decently.
Along with France and the US, Ireland and the Nordics used to be another exception, but it looks as though it's slipping over there as well. It's also going down in France, but more slowly.
By the way, many people think that France's relatively high TFR is due to immigration, but this is not true. Other countries with lots of immigrants are losing ground much faster and, if you disaggregate, you see that immigrants only increase France's TFR by about 0.1 point.
I wrote this last winter and, not only does the basic argument still applies (it's impossible to know exactly what effect restrictions have but it's not huge and they are not worth it), but now that most people are vaccinated it applies even more 🤷♂️ cspicenter.org/blog/waronscie…
By the way, I know that the impact of restrictions on well-being is subjective, but as I explain in the post, it doesn't mean that you can't know that they don't pass a cost-benefit test, because you can show that, *even if you make ridiculously generous assumptions about how
much they affect transmission*, the upper bound on how large the impact of restrictions on well-being can be before they no longer pass a cost-benefit test is so small that nobody can seriously deny their actual impact on well-being is higher.
I expect that existing immunity will continue to protect well against severe disease with Omicron, but I’m not going to start accepting claims made by public health officials without any data just because they validate my priors, so let’s just wait a little before celebrating.
If you’re wondering why I expect that immunity will continue to protect well against severe disease, you should read this post, where I argued that new variants were going to keep emerging but that they wouldn’t take us back to square one. cspicenter.org/blog/waronscie…
The good news is that, if Omicron really is more transmissible than Delta (which it may be, though of course it’s not 6 times more transmissible), we should know very soon whether I was right. Unless I was actually wrong, in which case this is the bad news 😅
Lmao, I told you this was going to happen, but they aren't going to say that B.1.1.529 has a R0 of 45 so hopefully people will stop making those ridiculous claims now. cspicenter.org/blog/waronscie…
In this case, incidence was so low when this new lineage started to expand that it could easily just be a founder effect (though genomic data suggests it's more than that), so inferring the transmissibility advantage from the transmission advantage is even more risky than usual.
Moreover, this analysis suggests that a lot of this transmission advantage might reflect immune evasion rather than a transmissibility advantage, but as I argued before even without that population structure alone could be doing a lot of work here.
Do we have good studies on the IFR of SARS-CoV-2 for people who are fully vaccinated? Preferably age-specific estimates.
I think the ONS in the UK is probably in the best position to do that, since I don't think anybody else does random surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 positivity on a regular basis, but I don't know if they have published any age-specific IFR estimates by vaccination status.
Since I have no doubt that vaccination reduces the probability of infection conditional on exposure, the IFR will understate the benefits of vaccination, but the probability of death conditional on infection is still interesting in my opinion.
C'est incroyable et profondément déprimant que, après plus d'un an et demi de pandémie, la HAS puisse encore écrire des choses pareilles sans craindre le ridicule. À juste titre d'ailleurs puisque les journalistes reprennent ça sans sourciller.
Je n'attends pas des journalistes qu'ils comprennent comment ces modèles fonctionnent, même si ce n'est pas très compliqué, mais à défaut de comprendre pourquoi ils sont pourris ils pourraient au moins remarquer que jusqu'à présent ils se sont systématiquement plantés.
Mais au lieu de ça ils répètent servilement des affirmations complètement absurdes parce qu'elles sortent de sacro-saints "modèles" auxquels ils ne comprennent rien.