Read on Twitter
I read this column by @anthonyfurey when he posted it & have been mulling it over. After some reflection on the ideas, I offer what I hope is a constructive critique.
5 good/true points in this column and 4 mistakes/logical flaws. A thread.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-i-used-to-be-a-covid-alarmist-then-the-facts-changed-my-mind
5 good/true points in this column and 4 mistakes/logical flaws. A thread.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-i-used-to-be-a-covid-alarmist-then-the-facts-changed-my-mind
Good/true points:
1) COVID-19 deaths in Canada are primarily concentrated among people who are older, who live in congregate settings, and who may have underlying conditions. Many younger people who have died also had underlying conditions.
1) COVID-19 deaths in Canada are primarily concentrated among people who are older, who live in congregate settings, and who may have underlying conditions. Many younger people who have died also had underlying conditions.
2) Healthy children should not be âkept under lock and keyâ for fear theyâll die of COVID-19 (though Iâd like to see data supporting Mr. Fureyâs claim of âmany parentsâ doing this.)
3) It might have gone better here in Canada had federal leaders taken it more seriously sooner.
3) It might have gone better here in Canada had federal leaders taken it more seriously sooner.
4) As bad as itâs been, it could have been worse and we should all be relieved.
5) Some people do seem resistant to good news.
5) Some people do seem resistant to good news.
Mistakes/logical flaws:
1) The argument that many people who have died had an underlying condition (implying: therefore their deaths arenât too worrisome) rests on the assumption that we expect people with underlying conditions to die soon. This is incorrect.
1) The argument that many people who have died had an underlying condition (implying: therefore their deaths arenât too worrisome) rests on the assumption that we expect people with underlying conditions to die soon. This is incorrect.
For example, Iâve lived with such a condition since childhood. Itâs a substantial risk factor for COVID death. Yet according to pre-COVID actuarial tables, Iâm expected to live at least 30 more years. (For the record, Iâd like to do so. My husband & children would like it, too.)
The same goes for older people. A 70-year-old who dies due to COVID-19 and who would have otherwise lived 4, 7, or 18 more years, say ⊠thatâs a loss and a tragedy.
2) We still donât know very much about longer-term outcomes of COVID-19, but available data suggest potential problems. Therefore, focusing on death as the only outcome of interest is sadly incomplete. https://twitter.com/kindrachukjason/status/1317361997676072960
It is possible those long-term effects are temporary. I sure hope they are. But right now, we donât know. What we do know is that the data suggest possible long-term effects of COVID-19 among young, fit, healthy people. https://twitter.com/nythealth/status/1335389164804710400
These include both physical and mental health effects. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/12/06/depression-anxiety-dementia-studies-link-covid-19-to-a-number-of-mental-health-disorders.html
It is a major oversight to fail to include these facts in a fact-based analysis of whether we are worrying too much. https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1296060039971692545
3) It is true that medicine knows a lot more about treating COVID-19 now than in March, and thatâs wonderful. But if too many people need medical care at once, it doesnât matter how much is known. You need enough staff to apply that knowledge. https://twitter.com/hwitteman/status/1327208946684342272
4) The argument for, âprotecting the vulnerable,â without otherwise controlling the virus unfortunately seems to be magical thinking. Iâd love it if it were possible. But repeatedly, around the world, we see that protecting the vulnerable requires controlling the virus.
I canât think of any country that has managed to avoid COVID-19 deaths without keeping community transmission down. If Iâm missing an example, please do let me know. (We should learn from them!)
In Canada, controlling the virus has often meant lockdowns of varying levels. Most havenât been very locked down, but theyâre still hard. Theyâve cost many people (including my husband) their jobs, as well as activities that contribute to our communities & bring joy to our lives.
There are also other/complementary approaches that have been shown to be effective. https://twitter.com/hwitteman/status/1328757443191517185
See also (scroll down for preprint): https://twitter.com/stfnflsch/status/1334498853526130688
Rather than discussing such methods, Mr. Fureyâs essay offers no specifics about how to protect the vulnerable, just a link to a vague article. This detracts from the believability of the statement. I know itâs a column, not an academic paper, but it should still be realistic.
It is absolutely fair to question whether provinces are focusing on the right things. Clearly, long-term care facilities need way, way more attention than they are getting. A column could be devoted to how this can be done. https://twitter.com/michaelschwandt/status/1334905436118474753
But simply writing that we should âprotect the vulnerable,â is a vague, motherhood statement. I wish expressing motherhood statements did useful things. Maybe it helps remind us of our moral duty? Iâd like to think thatâs true.
But weâve seen this a number of times nowâin open letters and other columns like this. And Iâm starting to wonder if people really include a line to the effect, âof course we should protect the vulnerable,â to comfort themselves that they arenât a *monster*, you know.
Anyway, to wrap up, some factual numbers. Mr. Furey writes that very few COVID-19 deaths are among children & younger adults. The implication that early deaths are acceptable providing the dead are old is morally problematic. But the stats are accurate. Letâs put them in context.
Some highly-publicized deaths in Canada of people under 30:
Polytechnique massacre: 14 deaths
Humboldt bus crash: 16 deaths
COVID-19: 17 deaths and counting
/end of thread
Polytechnique massacre: 14 deaths
Humboldt bus crash: 16 deaths
COVID-19: 17 deaths and counting
/end of thread
