BC HEALTH

Ryan Imgrund
@imgrund 5 years, 9 months ago 1526 views

Save to PDF Share See On Twitter

DR CHRIS MACKIE (@Healthmac) is London’s Medical Officer of Health and a government advisor.

Yesterday, he said schools being open, “SLOWS the spread of COVID.”

For context, let’s look at 23 other times he misused data or gave a bad unsupported take.

🧵A THREAD🧵

...1/24

...2/24

...3/24

...4/24

...5/24

...6/24

...7/24

...8/24

...9/24

...10/24

...11/24

This is my personal favourite: When he claimed the reproductive value was below 1... At the end of last February. 🤯

...12/24

...13/24

...14/24

...15/24

...16/24

...17/24

...18/24

...19/24

...20/24

And yet Mackie attacks modelers like @DFisman?

...21/24

...22/24

...23/24

...24/24

When you’re in a position of power people rely on what you say.

They don’t need your ego and “hot takes” to override what your supposed to do:
a) Tell the truth
b) Keep people informed.

Yesterday’s tweet on schools was one of your most dangerous yet.

Shameful misinformation.

More from Health

$\u2744\ufe0fI'm A Fuckin' Princess\u2744\ufe0f$

❄️I'm A Fuckin' Prince...
@Just_ReneaR

I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

$\u2744\ufe0f Mac n\u2019 Chise \u2744\ufe0f$

❄️ Mac n’ Chise ❄️...
@sailorrooscout

The importance of T-cell immunity!
A recent study has found that after one dose of Pfizer’s vaccine, patients had a strong T-cell response, and a boosted antibody response after their second dose. This is good news for many reasons so let’s read up.

This study found that people’s antibodies were moderately effective against the original strain after their first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine, less effective against the B.1.1.7 variant, and were unable to neutralize the B.1.351 variant. Read what I said, that’s only after ONE dose.

However, they had strong T-cell responses against ALL known variants after the first dose. So why is this important? To recap, T-cells stimulate B-cells to make antibodies. Antibodies are just your first line of defense which is what is initiated when you get a vaccine.

It’s our T-cells that are responsible for long-term immunity. When antibodies diminish after your initial inoculation, your T-cells-will tell your B-cells it’s time to produce more antibodies. As long as your T-cells still recognize this virus and inform your B-cells they need

to produce antibodies, the vaccine is still doing its job. Your antibodies will get built up over and over again. Just FYI your TCRs and your BCRs target different parts of the Coronavirus’ spike protein. Antibodies can prevent infection, your T cell-responses ensure that those

matthew remski
@matthewremski

A staple of anti-lockdown conspiracism in yoga/wellness is that public health measures are oppressive, authoritarian, and stifling what it means to be human. Masks suppress identity and speech. Vaccines assault the sovereign body. Influencers must rise up against tyranny! /1

Ironically, pandemic management in economies where yoga/wellness is lucrative has been a neoliberal, choose-your-own-adventure mess in which centre-right governments barter with public health to enact a patchwork of half-measures that punish the poor and marginalized. /2

The goal is not universal health rights, or protecting medical systems, or saving as many lives as possible. The goal is to return to business-as-usual, using public health as a pit stop on a productivity race off a cliff. The ice caps aren’t melting fast enough, I guess. /3

Right-leaning governments, like influencers, have assessed the COVID threat with the magical bias of limitless optimism. Then they work to normalize COVID casualties as a new cost of doing business. *This* is what alt-healthers and Qamoms call “socialist”, or “communist”. /4

Centre-right governments and wellness influencers share a goal: get back to the optimism of making productivity heroic and consumption virtuous, without any reflection on structural issues of injustice, or what universal health care funding and standards would look like. /5

Santiago
@svpino

You gotta think about this one carefully!

Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)

The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.

Your test comes back positive.

Are you really sick? Explain below 👇

The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through

Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021

You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.

👇

Here is what we know:

- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative

Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):

- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy

👇

Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:

▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)

▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)

👇

$Fr\xe9d\xe9ric Leroy$

Frédéric Leroy
@fleroy1974

I applaud the #EUCancerPlan *BUT* caution: putting #meat 🥩 (a nourishing, evolutionary food) in the same box as 🚬 to solve a contemporary health challenge, would be basing policy on assumptions rather than robust data.

#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREAD👇

\U0001f534LIVE \U0001f4c5Today \u23f012:00 CET

We are presenting today the #EUCancerPlan as part of a strong \U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa#HealthUnion

Follow the presentation live here: https://t.co/Cr8ATvzNkg #WorldCancerDay pic.twitter.com/zdByuklWV6
— EU_HEALTH - #EUCancerPlan (@EU_Health) February 3, 2021

1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).

But, let’s have a closer look at all this! 🔍

2/ First, meat being “associated” with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.

Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.

3/ That’s because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).

Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they

4/ What’s captured here is sociology, not physiology.

Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who don’t adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.

That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.