Read on Twitter
THREAD: Scientific Evidence & Covid
So, a paper has been submitted ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160762v1) stating that Herd Immunity thresholds may be considerably lower than thought, due to variations of susceptibility or exposure of CV. Whereas random vaccination HIT may be >60%, 1/? https://twitter.com/DryburghDotCom/status/1292175730277842944
So, a paper has been submitted ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160762v1) stating that Herd Immunity thresholds may be considerably lower than thought, due to variations of susceptibility or exposure of CV. Whereas random vaccination HIT may be >60%, 1/? https://twitter.com/DryburghDotCom/status/1292175730277842944
Naturally selective infections may have a lower HIT. Interesting argument, but unfortunately rejected by the editorial team, not even sent for review. The top reason for rejection was this: 2/? https://twitter.com/mgmgomes1/status/1291162360657453056?s=20
Meanwhile, face masks have been widely mandated in many countries. The evidence around face masks is generally poor quality, and lacks decent RCTs. This is due to several reasons: Prior to CV we weren't really looking at it. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ 3/?
It is difficult to undertake good quality research on in vivo interventions such as mask wearing, as there are many confounding factors. So there is an absence of high quality evidence regarding this. Nonetheless the govt has brought in mask wearing 4/? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1290748013552513026.html
Mask wearing itself is not entirely benign, there any many issues and negative effects with it, and there appears to be some evidence that mandating masks has actually negatively affected retail. So. Just to recap: 5/? https://twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/1289849809059250176?s=20
2020 Govt have instituted changes (mask wearing, lockdown) in the absence of decent evidence of benefit.
Meanwhile scientific journal articles are censored (& not even sent for review) because they need a "very high ev bar" because the findings don't conform to the narrative 6/?
Meanwhile scientific journal articles are censored (& not even sent for review) because they need a "very high ev bar" because the findings don't conform to the narrative 6/?
We are erring on the side of caution demanding significantly high levels of evidence for anything which might indicate that CV is less of a threat. But we are happy to institute policy based on flimsy evidence of benefit, when it may well cause harm. This is concerning. 7/?
