Read on Twitter
Great Barrington “focused protection” is 100% the game plan in Quebec. Watch QC’s PHO Dr Arruda explain how once 65+ year olds are vaccinated, we can infect 6x as many Quebecers and fill our hospitals with <65 year olds instead.
+RTing my thread on the ethics of this approach: https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1349729097874718721
+RTing my thread on the ethics of this approach: https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1349729097874718721
Does he realize that he just acknowledged that they know young Quebecers will fill our hospitals and that those hospitalisations and deaths are all calculated in their plan which is based on “hospital capacity”. He didn’t even flinch.
@francoislegault @cdube_sante @JustinTrudeau https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1355923739037327360
@francoislegault @cdube_sante @JustinTrudeau https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1355923739037327360
I did not expect this to get so much traction but I'm glad that it did because it's important to understand the reasoning behind the govt's decisions. There are 3 broad categories of covid responses. Suppression, mitigation and "focused protection."
This is an example of what mitigation strategy would look like. Mitigation does not mean letting covid spread to max "tolerable levels" as suggested above. It means mitigating the risk of transmission when we re-open through a comprehensive action plan. https://twitter.com/BogochIsaac/status/1355899789469229058?s=20
This isn't Quebec's first slip up either. Premier @francoislegault also used explicit Great Barrington "focused protection" language at an earlier press conference. https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1348730754948325378?s=20
Focused protection is a fantasy with no basis in science that results in hospitalizations and deaths, even if it's applied only to people younger than 65 years old. See the thread RTed in my original tweet above for more on this.
Finally, I would like to clarify my interpretation of what Dr. Arruda said. Some are commenting that what he said was that we can loosen restrictions further once 65+ are vaccinated because more cases won't put as much pressure on the healthcare system.
I stand by my take bc
1. That's an admission that we aren't aiming to aggressively prevent infections in people <65.
2. He's wrong about the impact on healthcare. 60% of covid patients in QC ICUs are in their 60s or younger. Letting cases rise means putting people in the hospital
1. That's an admission that we aren't aiming to aggressively prevent infections in people <65.
2. He's wrong about the impact on healthcare. 60% of covid patients in QC ICUs are in their 60s or younger. Letting cases rise means putting people in the hospital
That doesn't even take into account long covid, or the long term morbidity and organ damage of many hosp/ICU survivors, or the emergence of new variants that could be more dangerous or even evade vaccine immunity. This line of thinking is dangerous and deserves to be called out.
Update for those who don't think the above approach counts as "focused protection" I invite you to read GBD FAQs where they also insist the approach isn't about herd immunity or intentionally allowing the young to get infected. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
https://gbdeclaration.org/frequently-asked-questions/
https://gbdeclaration.org/frequently-asked-questions/
The day QC puts makes plans to decrease transmission (ex: mass rapid testing, air purifiers/universal masks in school, online school option, promote better masks + ventilation for the public and essential workers, airborne precautions for HCWs and LTCs) it'll count as mitigation.
