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
The genesis of a pandemic.
The #Corona crisis began with a panopticon of absurd events, improbable coincidences and outright lies.
Time for a review of the impossibilities.
A thread 🧵
1/ At the end of December 2019, Wenliang, an eye doctor from Wuhan, noticed an allegedly unusual incidence of pneumonia. It remains a mystery what is unusual about 44 patients in a city with over 8 million citizens during winter.
2/ On Jan. 5, WHO informs for the first time about a pneumonia of unknown cause, which it can clarify by 7 January. The virus is believed to be a close relative of SARS. A fish market allegedly is the origin. The #Zoonosis legend, unproven until today, is born.
3/ On Jan. 10, the first gene sequence of the virus today called #SARS-CoV2 appears at https://t.co/tqxKgyykBr, and on Jan. 12, 4 more sequences are published by @edwardcholmes in the GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data)
4/ As early as January 13, just a single day later, WHO accepts Mr. #Drosten|s PCR testing protocol as gold
The #Corona crisis began with a panopticon of absurd events, improbable coincidences and outright lies.
Time for a review of the impossibilities.
A thread 🧵
1/ At the end of December 2019, Wenliang, an eye doctor from Wuhan, noticed an allegedly unusual incidence of pneumonia. It remains a mystery what is unusual about 44 patients in a city with over 8 million citizens during winter.
2/ On Jan. 5, WHO informs for the first time about a pneumonia of unknown cause, which it can clarify by 7 January. The virus is believed to be a close relative of SARS. A fish market allegedly is the origin. The #Zoonosis legend, unproven until today, is born.
3/ On Jan. 10, the first gene sequence of the virus today called #SARS-CoV2 appears at https://t.co/tqxKgyykBr, and on Jan. 12, 4 more sequences are published by @edwardcholmes in the GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data)
4/ As early as January 13, just a single day later, WHO accepts Mr. #Drosten|s PCR testing protocol as gold
1) THERE IS A VERY REAL, CREDIBLE AND SIGNIFICANT DANGER THAT mRNA SPIKE PROTEIN THERAPIES WILL INDUCE PRION OR PRION-LIKE DISEASE
A paper from 2016 shows that prion and prion-like proteins can also spread and propagate from cell to cell through macropinocytosis. It is also
2) noted that the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 can enter cells through macropinocytosis, without the presence of the entire virion. Given the recent Tweet to me by @endocdoc, where he recently saw a patient develop Creutzfeld-Jakob after COVID-19, the extant paper showing CJD
3) CJD after COVID-19 infection and the recent death of the head of Astra-Zeneca research from CJD should be concerning to all. Especially if he gave himself the AZ therapy during Stage 1 or Stage 2 trials. This would give a possible timeframe for onset.
Again, all Spike Protein
4) mRNA and DNA should be paused until long term animal studies can be
5)
https://t.co/PWOgyPoG5d
A paper from 2016 shows that prion and prion-like proteins can also spread and propagate from cell to cell through macropinocytosis. It is also
2) noted that the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 can enter cells through macropinocytosis, without the presence of the entire virion. Given the recent Tweet to me by @endocdoc, where he recently saw a patient develop Creutzfeld-Jakob after COVID-19, the extant paper showing CJD
3) CJD after COVID-19 infection and the recent death of the head of Astra-Zeneca research from CJD should be concerning to all. Especially if he gave himself the AZ therapy during Stage 1 or Stage 2 trials. This would give a possible timeframe for onset.
Again, all Spike Protein
4) mRNA and DNA should be paused until long term animal studies can be
5)
https://t.co/PWOgyPoG5d
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
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
