Given discourse about ๐ฉ๐ฐ COVID-19, it's necessary to point out that I - and likely most ๐ ID experts - have no trouble understanding the ๐ฉ๐ฐ data (which isn't unique).
It's about fundamental disagreements on the interpretation of the data and strategy chosen.
๐งต๐ for nuance.
A few things first:
1. Denmark has very high vaccination and booster rates that *greatly* reduce disease.
2. Yes, people "with" and "for" COVID-19 are included in official statistics.
However, there's a big difference between "it's not as bad as it could be" vs "it's over".
My main concern - and I believe this is what we're seeing in ๐ฉ๐ฐ, but also in many other countries - is that we're becoming delusional. In many cases, trying to make very specific data fit a narrative we all so desperately want to be true.
Please read:
twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1491807696193949696
Specifically on Denmark, more nuance ๐
Pretending that alternative strategies are an easy pick would be naive. I understand Denmark's choice, but I don't agree.
twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1486427000499675142
There is *no* question that highly vaccinated countries like Denmark are in a much better place today than in 2020 (although, equity, people!!).
However, this brings me back to my first point there's a big difference between "it's not as bad as it could be" vs "it's over".
This will be my final comment on this topic for a while.
Remember, if we really want to ensure that we can get "back to normal" ASAP we need to science the shit out of this and keep innovating like there's no tomorrow.