This is from the latest Imperial College report. They project that, even in the best case scenario, the daily number of deaths at the peak would be ~3 times as high as before vaccination in the absence of new restrictions or behavioral changes 🙃 imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-inf…
It's the same thing every time: take the VOC's initial growth advantage, turn that into a *transmissibility* advantage, plug that into a model that assumes quasi-homogeneous mixing with no behavioral changes and, congratulations, you got yourself a nice apocalyptic prediction!
My bad, you must insist that it's not a prediction but a *projection* (as if the reason why it has zero chance of coming true were because of scenario uncertainty and not model misspecification 🤪), so that when it doesn't happen you can say that your *projection* wasn't wrong...
I'm sorry but anyone who pretends not to understand that this is complete nonsense is either a moron or a liar. But I don't believe the ICL folks are morons, so this is 100% bullshit, politically motivated modeling, meant to pressure the government into implementing restrictions.
At this point, it's impossible they are so stupid as not to understand that this stuff is bullshit, so what they do is release those projections (making some caveats to cover their asses which they know full well will be ignored by the media) to put the heat on the government.
Sadly, even though I know for a fact (some of them email me you know...) that many epidemiologists understand that very well, they will either not say it because it's bad for their career or, in the rare cases when they do, they will just be ignored or demonized by the media.
I wish a journalist in a prominent outlet would explain that stuff in terms that are understandable by the educated public. It's totally doable and frankly it has to be done, because the instrumentalization of bullshit modeling during this crisis has been absolutely outrageous.
This is what I'm talking about: they make all sorts of caveats in the paper to cover their asses, but they know full well this pointless exercise will result in this sort of headlines, and they know very well what the political effect of those headlines will be 🤷♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is basically the conclusion I have reached after the second wave and why I have been endlessly frustrated by otherwise smart people coming up with technocratic solutions that will never happen because they fail to take into account the political reality.
In theory, I may even agree that some of those plans are good (although I think more often than not they're just magical thinking), but in practice their chances of being implemented are essentially zero and the main effect of those proposals is to keep the hysteria alive.
I oppose even plans that can be implemented, such as vaccine passports, because I think that at this point the main effect of any restriction will be to prolong the pandemic by delaying the moment people accept that we have to move on.
I found those observations by Gregory the Great particularly insightful, because they might explain why I was unable to comfort people I care about in the past, since I couldn't feel the way they did while I was trying to comfort them.
It's easier said than done though, because in the cases I have in mind, doing so would have required that I see the world in the same way they did, which is not something you can do at will. So I felt bad because they felt bad, but I couldn't really feel bad *with* them.
Does anybody know a good review article that can serve as an introduction to virology, preferably focused on the medical and public health aspects rather than on the evolution, that is suitable for non-science university students without any scientific background?
Perhaps some extra details on what I'm looking for would help. Basically it should explain what viruses are and how they infect organisms/cells, give a sense of their variety (without going into the Baltimore classification though, which is already too complicated for that
audience), explain how organisms react to infection and how they cause diseases, talk about properties that are relevant from a medical and public health point of view (virulence, transmissibility, etc.), say a few things about how they mutate and their evolution. In 30-50 pages.
I expect that Omicron's transmission advantage will also fluctuate wildly across time and place, but one thing that suggests to me it really is more transmissible than Delta or more capable of evading prior immunity is that incidence in SA was very low when it started expanding.
Indeed, the theory I proposed to explain why Alpha's and Delta's transmission advantages had eventually collapsed requires a large outbreak associated with the variant somewhere, as I explained back then.
Thus, if Omicron is taking over in Europe despite low seeding from South Africa (which seems to be the case now and is what you'd expect with low incidence in South African before borders closure), it doesn't work.
Looking back on the lockdown debate, it's funny that it started as a debate between people in favor of letting it rip to get it over with quickly and people in favor of "flattening the curve", but everyone was wrong since no matter what you do more or less the same thing happens.
We have kind of forgotten that, because it has been almost 2 years since the pandemic started and we have gradually changed our positions without noticing, but it's really striking if you go back to the debates from last March.
For instance, I was briefly a "flatten the curve" guy, then after the first wave I became a "let it rip" guy and after the summer I became convinced that non-pharmaceutical interventions didn't make a big difference anyway so they weren't worth it, which is still my position.
It's amazing how the idea that mass rapid-testing would somehow make a significant difference has become an article of faith among the sophisticates, when there is not a shred of evidence that it would. I hate the FDA as much as the next guy, but this is just magical thinking.
Smart people keep coming up with technocratic plans that totally ignore political/social realities, feed them into bullshit models that obviously don't capture the underlying transmission process and make unrealistic behavioral assumptions, which find it will save a ton of lives.