Read on Twitter
Dr Jha’s position seems smart...until you think about it.
For one, it proves too much.
If the inevitability of mixing discredits shielding based on risk, it discredit *every* strategy, including lockdown.
The essential aren't on an island. They are among us. They are us. https://twitter.com/ashishkjha/status/1302082530217201669
For one, it proves too much.
If the inevitability of mixing discredits shielding based on risk, it discredit *every* strategy, including lockdown.
The essential aren't on an island. They are among us. They are us. https://twitter.com/ashishkjha/status/1302082530217201669
More fundamentally, the “mixing” rejoinder is just an exercise in making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Yes, we cannot perfectly shield the vulnerable. But can we not do so more or less? And shouldn’t we strive for the former?
Yes, we cannot perfectly shield the vulnerable. But can we not do so more or less? And shouldn’t we strive for the former?
Again, what is the alternative?
All strategies segment. Lockdown segments based on the utility of the person to the aristocracy. How is that better than trying to segment based on relative risk?
All strategies segment. Lockdown segments based on the utility of the person to the aristocracy. How is that better than trying to segment based on relative risk?
If we could instantly eradicate the virus, of course that would be ideal.
But we know there will be some more infections. So given this fact, we must spread our finite resources & interventions heterogeneously to reflect the heterogeneity of risk.
But we know there will be some more infections. So given this fact, we must spread our finite resources & interventions heterogeneously to reflect the heterogeneity of risk.
The alternative is not cocooning everyone. That is not a thing.
The alternative is paradoxically reallocating finite resources/interventions that could go toward the vulnerable away from them . . . in the name of “protecting everyone to protect the vulnerable.”
The alternative is paradoxically reallocating finite resources/interventions that could go toward the vulnerable away from them . . . in the name of “protecting everyone to protect the vulnerable.”
Handicap parking is not allocated perfectly.
But assigning handicap parking to everyone doesn’t solve that problem. It makes it worse.
But assigning handicap parking to everyone doesn’t solve that problem. It makes it worse.
Perfect continence is technically never possible. That is not an argument for donning depends and not even trying for some continence.
In short, yes, we are all intertwined. But not all of us have to take care of vulnerable people. We can mitigate the mixing. I have not seen my dad since March. If there is an argument against segment/shield based on risk, the fact it cannot be done perfectly is not it.
PS Not only is resistance to an age-sensitive strategy effectively shifting epi burden onto vulnerable. It is increasing the aggregate size of the epi burden (which hurts everyone). See eg:
https://twitter.com/covid19crusher/status/1302527563479347202?s=21 https://twitter.com/covid19crusher/status/1302527563479347202
https://twitter.com/covid19crusher/status/1302527563479347202?s=21 https://twitter.com/covid19crusher/status/1302527563479347202
Here is a rigorous analysis of how age-based strategies can save lives. https://twitter.com/wespegden/status/1288140129677332482?s=21 https://twitter.com/wespegden/status/1288140129677332482
See here too. https://twitter.com/martinkulldorff/status/1248617666308235264?s=21 https://twitter.com/martinkulldorff/status/1248617666308235264
@BallouxFrancois I know you are skeptical of segment and shield. Do you think my take is unsound?
