This will be my first and possibly last tweet (thread) as I am mostly here to learn. It is prompted by a recent study questioning lockdown efficacy that is getting a lot of attention. It appears people believe it to be the first of its kind, but I have been collecting similar
“there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020”
“Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
“government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality”
“Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions become effective”
“the decline in infections in England...began before full lockdown…[S]uch a scenario would be consistent with...Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly after the UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown”
“the UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behavior of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly).”
“Given that the evidence reveals that the Corona disease declines even without a complete lockdown, it is recommendable to reverse the current policy and remove
the lockdown”
“stay at home orders, closure of all non-essential businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact”
“these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures … experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”
“the model does not support [the] estimate that lockdown reduced the case reproduction number R by 81% or that more than three million deaths were averted by non-pharmaceutical interventions.”
“The case of Sweden, where the authors find the reduction in transmission to have been only moderately weaker than in other countries despite no lockdown having occurred, is prima facie evidence”
“general social distancing was also projected to reduce the number of cases but increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70 only”
“Strategies that minimise deaths involve the infected fraction primarily being in the
“results presented in the report suggested that the addition of interventions restricting younger people
“We show that [lockdown] is modestly superior in saving lives compared to [focused protection], but with tremendous costs to prevent one case of death. This might result in overwhelming economic effects that are expected to increase future death toll”
“For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals”
“Current policy can be misdirected and can therefore have long and even short-term negative effects on human welfare and thus result in not actually minimizing death rates (incorporating externalities), especially in the long run.”
“For example, the data…shows a decrease in infection rates after countries eased...lockdowns with >99% statistical significance. Indeed...infection rates have declined after reopening even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag.
“restrictions imposed by the pandemic (eg, stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (eg, drug overdoses).”
“In 14 states, more than 50%
“We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy <60 (ie schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: Feb 23 2021; Catalonia: Dec 28 2020; Paris: Jan 14 2021; London: Jan 22 2021)”
“Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended”
“Our findings … further raise doubt about the importance in NPI’s (lockdown policies in particular) in accounting for the evolution of COVID-19 transmission rates over time and across locations”
“[the] President...has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events…Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe-just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million”
“living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92).”
More from Category c19
1/ Thread – THE YEAR OF THE RAT
“15 days to slow the spread” began one year ago. It was March 2020, the Year of the Rat. Never was any year more fitting of the name. Never in history have the people been betrayed so callously, flagrantly and absolutely by their alleged leaders.
2/ They were betrayed by their WHO
3/ and their national health
4/ They were betrayed by medical
5/ and their peer
“15 days to slow the spread” began one year ago. It was March 2020, the Year of the Rat. Never was any year more fitting of the name. Never in history have the people been betrayed so callously, flagrantly and absolutely by their alleged leaders.
2/ They were betrayed by their WHO
3/ and their national health
4/ They were betrayed by medical
Despite ignorance by many in the West, this article by The Lancet is a powerful endorsement of China\u2019s successful pandemic response. Hate to read stories by those paparazzi journalists who are experts at spinning but have little knowledge of science. https://t.co/Q8rKwwTPsI pic.twitter.com/436BEmx9nl
— Chen Weihua \uff08\u9648\u536b\u534e\uff09 (@chenweihua) October 16, 2020
5/ and their peer
6/ Eurosurveillance, a journal whose editors coincidentally includes Mr. Drosten, takes only a single day for the peer review process and publishes the hastily compiled PCR protocol on January 22. https://t.co/cWX3UdKeID
— Pace \U0001f642 (@theotherphilipp) February 25, 2021
All you need to know about COVID19
FACTS NOT FEAR
Covid 19 is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. SARS-CoV-2 is one of 7 coronaviruses known to man. 1/n
The pandemic is real. Excess deaths were observed in many countries. Not all countries were affected in the same way due to pre-existing immunity, the health status of the population and demographics (the proportion of elderly in the population) 2/n
https://t.co/65elPq3gp5
COVID 19 presents a high risk for the very few and negligible risk for the many.
The infection fatality rate in different age groups:
<19 y, IFR= 0.003%
20-49 y: IFR= 0.02%
50-69 y: 0.5%
>70y, IFR=
Not everybody is susceptible to the virus. If reinfected, pre-existing immunity from related viruses gives protection from developing the disease or from developing serious symptoms.
4/n
“The evidence that a subset of people has a cross-reactive T cell repertoire through exposure to related coronaviruses is
FACTS NOT FEAR
Covid 19 is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. SARS-CoV-2 is one of 7 coronaviruses known to man. 1/n
The pandemic is real. Excess deaths were observed in many countries. Not all countries were affected in the same way due to pre-existing immunity, the health status of the population and demographics (the proportion of elderly in the population) 2/n
https://t.co/65elPq3gp5
COVID 19 presents a high risk for the very few and negligible risk for the many.
The infection fatality rate in different age groups:
<19 y, IFR= 0.003%
20-49 y: IFR= 0.02%
50-69 y: 0.5%
>70y, IFR=
Not everybody is susceptible to the virus. If reinfected, pre-existing immunity from related viruses gives protection from developing the disease or from developing serious symptoms.
4/n
“The evidence that a subset of people has a cross-reactive T cell repertoire through exposure to related coronaviruses is
1/: Avicenna was a Persian scientist, who lived 1000 years ago. He put two lambs in separate cages, which had the same health conditions. But only one lamb could see a wolf that was put in a third cage. The observations were astounding. (h/t @farmer_student) ⬇️a thread⬇️
2/: Both lambs were provided with the same feed. Also, the weight was exactly the same when the experiment started. Several months later, the lamb with sight on the wolf became cranky, restless, weak, and showed a significant weight loss and signs of poor development.
3/: The lamb that was under chronic stress as it was placed in a situation of constant apparent danger died eventually. 🐑🪦 In fact, the wolf did not pose a danger at all, but this was beyond the lamb's perception.
4/: This experiment showed that increased levels of the stress hormone cortisol have a bad impact on the metabolism of mammals. And 1000 years after this experiment, we are facing a similar situation again but with the difference that we are aware of the impact of stress.
5/: Currently, we are overwhelmed with medial and governmental propaganda with respect to a common cold virus (that might hypothetically be more lethal though) that doesn't do harm to the majority of the people. Extreme global measures are taken.
2/: Both lambs were provided with the same feed. Also, the weight was exactly the same when the experiment started. Several months later, the lamb with sight on the wolf became cranky, restless, weak, and showed a significant weight loss and signs of poor development.
3/: The lamb that was under chronic stress as it was placed in a situation of constant apparent danger died eventually. 🐑🪦 In fact, the wolf did not pose a danger at all, but this was beyond the lamb's perception.
4/: This experiment showed that increased levels of the stress hormone cortisol have a bad impact on the metabolism of mammals. And 1000 years after this experiment, we are facing a similar situation again but with the difference that we are aware of the impact of stress.
5/: Currently, we are overwhelmed with medial and governmental propaganda with respect to a common cold virus (that might hypothetically be more lethal though) that doesn't do harm to the majority of the people. Extreme global measures are taken.
Cortisol is known as the 'stress hormone' and is a silent killer. Cortisol levels are increased by:
— Dr. Simon \u30c4 (@goddeketal) February 17, 2021
\U0001f449\U0001f3fc Fear & anxiety
\U0001f449\U0001f3fc Constant stress
\U0001f449\U0001f3fc Social isolation
The media propagated fear and political measures are counterproductive. They shorten our lives. https://t.co/6BZ34pVBjw
