Read on Twitter
Hi, @gallagher_grant. I watched the whole interview with Dr. Bhopal. A few things. First, he suggests that herd immunity can be reached for #SARSCoV2 when between 25-45% of the population has been exposed. 1/
A recent review of the literature in @NatImmunol suggests that this is over-optimistic. 2/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5 1/
This article also notes that even with a slightly less optimistic 50% for population immunity to #SARSCoV2, 500,000–2,100,000 deaths could occur in the USA to achieve it without a vaccine. 3/
Dr. Bhopal also suggests that this disease is not a serious one in the young, which you agree with in your own comments in the piece. 4/
However, serious complications of #COVID19 in the young, while less frequent than in the elderly, are not trivial, as this recent @JAMA_current letter suggests. 5/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2770542?guestAccessKey=87e8344a-8e2f-4ca8-8e1a-95be53bbf71e&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jamainternalmedicine&utm_content=olf&utm_term=090920
Some may suggest that these individuals don’t “count” because many had co-morbid conditions, but given the prevalence of these underlying factors in the US, it is difficult to write off #COVID19 as a health concern for this age group. 6/
Dr. Bhopal suggests that since #COVID19 is not a serious disease in the young that social distancing isn’t particularly important for young people among themselves. 7/
What this ignores is that social distancing among young people is not to protect them, but the elderly and vulnerable that Dr. Bhopal suggests should be the focus of our efforts. More infected youth mean more possibility for contact with those at higher risk. 8/
In fact, my concern is not theoretical: this recent @CDCgov report suggests that this increase in “younger adults contributed to community transmission of COVID-19 to older adults” over the past few months. 9/ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6939e1.htm?s_cid=mm6939e1_w
Dr. Bhopal suggests we should ‘teach’ young people how to behave among older adults, those with other conditions that make them vulnerable to severe cases of #COVID19. 10/
Here the onus is now shifted to young people’s behavior rather than assigning a societal responsibility for all of us to protect people at risk. 11/
As an aside, this is reminiscent of the college presidents shifting blame to students for campus outbreaks. It’s up to the young to behave themselves, even if we create situations that enhance risk. 12/ https://www.chronicle.com/article/blame-pollyanna-presidents-when-covid-19-plans-fail 9/
How do we protect the elderly and others at high risk? Dr. Bhopal says mask-wearing at home and the 3 or 6 ft. rule. 13/
But then he says the data on masks is weak, so we’re left with keep 3-6 ft away from our grandparents or family members at high risk. That’s the advice. All of it. 14/
As someone who works on #HIV, I agree with Dr. Bhopal that other diseases cannot be ignored with a focus on #COVID19, but why is there an assumption that we cannot do more than one thing at the same time? Why do we set the bar so low for ourselves? 15/
As someone who has written on the burdens being placed on the most vulnerable in our society by the pandemic I also agree we need to focus on their plight as a matter of utmost urgency. Here is the link to the first of three essays for @BostonReview. 16/ http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality-science-nature/amy-kapczynski-gregg-gonsalves-alone-against-virus
But the idea that the cure is worse than the disease, particularly on the economic front, is not supported by economists, who are always focused on trade-offs. Here: 17/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-survey-strong-u-s-recovery-depends-on-effective-covid-19-response-11594303200
And from myself and my colleague @akapczynski. 19/ http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/gregg-gonsalves-amy-kapczynski-markets-v-lives
Dr. Bhopal is also categorical on protective immunity, saying you get it, and you are protected at least for this season (several months). 20/
I am hopeful on this, lean in this direction, but the jury is still out. 21/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18450-4
Dr. Bhopal bemoans the attacks on @WHO, on global health multi-lateralism, but this is the same agency that called COVID-19 a global health emergency. It didn't say, it's not as bad as HIV, as car accidents. Do we support WHO or do we not? 22/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/30/who-declares-coronavirus-outbreak-a-global-health-emergency/
You never ask a critical question of Dr. Bhopal. Not once. You’re prosecuting a case here, with leading questions abounding. 23/
Your case: this has been a pernicious, misguided plan, which has enacted draconian measures from coast to coast, for months after month. 24/
But compliance with the initial orders was spotty at best. 25/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/02/us/coronavirus-social-distancing.html
And many started staying at home even before such orders were enacted. 26/ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30553-3/fulltext
And this didn't go on for month after month. Many states lifted orders as early as April. 27/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-map-coronavirus.html
You claim #COVID19 not as bad as diverticulitis and both of you suggest that #SARSCOV2 is less of a problem than HIV, which took a decade--not a few months--to hit 200,000 deaths in the US. 28/
Even Dr. Bhopal is inconsistent in what he’s saying. He says his chess club was late in doing the “right” thing and shut down, which now in retrospect, was the wrong thing to do, as we’ve been all over-reacting from the start. Which is it? 29/
I know people are angry, frustrated, depressed. I know it because I feel it all too. Day. After. Day. 30/
But Dr. Bhopal, @MartinKulldorff, @SWAtlasHoover are purveyors of easy answers. They all rely on the promise that for most of us, back to normal is around the corner. 31/
This epidemic is not so bad, or not so bad for us. And we’ll figure out what to do with the old, those living with disabilities or with underlying medical conditions. 32/
Except we really never do. We write off the vulnerable, the old for the young, the healthy for the sick. It's as American as apple pie. We don't have universal healthcare, we shred the safety net, because we simply don't care. 33/
I’m not for the status quo. Believe me. It’s an anathema to me. 34/
We’re all looking for a better way, but it’s not in these simplistic notions, based on dubious assumptions that are being circulated by these men. 35/
I'm not the only one to make these critiques. 36/ https://twitter.com/StearnsLab/status/1308824652161007617
Many of us have been pushing for what we call a New Politics of Care, not of the separation and deprivation, which we've seen to date. And it is within our reach. 37/ http://bostonreview.net/politics/gregg-gonsalves-amy-kapczynski-new-politics-care
As @akapczynski and I say in our piece: "We must build for a better future, not just climb out of the rubble of this pandemic, brush ourselves off, and start up in the same place we found ourselves in January 2020." 38/
And finally: "Getting back to normal was never going to be a solace for many in our country. Business as usual is precisely what has made us all more vulnerable to disasters like the one we are currently experiencing." 39/
"We need to build a new movement that heals us and our body politic, and that will allow us—all of us—to survive a pandemic, and then, to thrive." end/
