I've had columns rejected specifically for citing @zalaly et al's Nature study, which is still the best research we currently have on reinfection risk. Zeynep Tufekci and others have worked to discredit it. This is easy because people do not understand the statistical methods.🧵
Some health journalists upset I cite it have said that it's irrelevant to the broader public because the study is of unhealthy older men. (Frail seems to be Tufekci's favourite word to describe certain disadvantaged groups). Nobody mentions covariates. nature.com/articles/s4159…
There is a long section in the manuscript outlining all the covariates used. It is incredibly comprehensive. Nature peer review is no joke. In lay terms, the results of the study account for the various demographic and health characteristics of the participants. 
The authors even went beyond covariates they knew could affect the results and designed an algorithm to identify any additional covariates that could confound the results, and then included 100 more of those. These are advanced and very robust statistical methods.
On top of covariates, the study is just huge. There are still 589,573 women in the study and 680,358 people under the median US age of 38.8. The study is of 5,819,264 people. To suggest is it irrelevant despite covariates and because of a high percentage of older men is wrong.
Yes, the study shows total risk accumulates with additional reinfections. This is obvious. But it also shows total risk increases significantly - reinfections may be milder on average than 1st ones but are far from negligible. This may make continual reinfection unsustainable.
People who are trying to dismiss or mis-contextualize this study are actively drawing attention away from the urgency of its results and may not want to face their possible implications. I can't speak for certain as to motivations.
"The evidence shows that reinfection further increases risks of death, hospitalization and sequelae in multiple organ systems in the acute and postacute phase. Reducing overall burden of death and disease due to SARS-CoV-2 will require strategies for reinfection prevention."
More vague commentary ignoring the statistical methods.
When powerful platformed people use weak arguments to selectively discredit research in a way that precisely allows them to acknowledge long COVID & also justify status quo “normalcy” mass reinfection, it’s questionable.
When powerful platformed people use weak arguments to selectively discredit research in a way that precisely allows them to acknowledge long COVID & also justify status quo “normalcy” mass reinfection, it’s questionable.
IMO the giveaway is here: it’s absolutely key to defend at all costs the notion that young people will be fine with continual reinfection. This motivates the arguments. It is the narrative justifying the return to normalcy - which is eugenic in its policies and outcomes.
Again, completely ignoring the covariates and the fact that ~600k young people are in the study.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
