That's right. The hypothesis is that English speakers may be more likely to spread COVID because the aspirated consonants at the end of words (p,k,t) generate respiratory droplets.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The paper draws on an obscure 2003 letter in The Lancet, which made a similar argument about SARS. That letter is four short paragraphs long; you might as well read the whole thing.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7135525/ …
Show this thread -
The 2003 letter is based on the fact that many US tourists to China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan caught SARS, but no Japanese tourists did. That's it. The claim is based on that one comparison.
Show this thread -
Also odd: the claim that language you speak determines your chance of *getting* the disease in China/HK/Taiwan, not your chance of spreading it. This is blamed on shopkeepers—silly, all the more so given the difficulties in following aspiration patterns in a second language.
Show this thread -
(In _Calling Bullshit_,
@jevinwest and I write about the importance of considering alternative hypotheses before accepting data as evidence of a claim. Could there be other differences between US and Japanese tourists beyond three aspirated consonants?)Show this thread -
So back to the new paper. The authors write "In this paper, we support the hypothesis reported in Inouye [the letter discussed above] that aspirated consonants might produce more droplets in comparison to unaspirated consonants."
Show this thread -
Let's see how they support it. They do a manifestly silly t-test comparing COVID incidence in countries with and without aspirated consonants. But it's not the ridiculous design that is the best part.
Show this thread -
The best part is that their analysis provides ZERO support for their hypothesis. Their t-test is non-significant. It's not even close. If I understand what they are doing, their t value of 0.73 with 18 df gives p=0.237 (
@pbleic got the same value). Here are the data.pic.twitter.com/WHpGSbXiUa
Show this thread -
But of course we get the old "not significant but in the right direction" chestnut.pic.twitter.com/A7wmvNo1M0
Show this thread -
And then,
@pbleic notes,@Forbes just has to jump on the story, and presents it as if the hypothesis is supported. This is why, in our class we encourage students to trace back to the source. Reading the Forbes story, you'd never expect the graph above.https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonescalante/2020/09/08/why-speaking-english-may-spread-more-coronavirus-than-other-languages/#da3c3f46eeaa …Show this thread -
Finally, I want to clean up a bit of my own bullshit. Earlier in this thread I referenced aspirated consonants at the end of words. In English we don't aspirate ending consonants. If you're familiar with the International Phonetic Alphabet, you might say that I fuktʰ upʰ. /fin
Show this thread -
A follow-up about the "not significant but in the right direction" argument that the authors make. This is particularly problematic in the case of a retrospective observational study such as the one here. When the authors decided to do it, they had already seen some of the data.
Show this thread -
They presumably knew about the failure to control COVID in the US and Britain, and about the successes in Japan and elsewhere. Also they presumably knew something about aspiration patterns (from the Lancet letter if nowhere else), to have formed the hypothesis in the first place.
Show this thread -
Given all of this, the p value in question means something different than the p value of a hypothesis formulated before looking at any of the data. It's remarkable that their p value was not lower than p=0.237 on these grounds alone.
Show this thread -
So as unimpressive as "significant but not in the right direction" may be for an experimental study, when you hear this in a retrospective observational study, it's a whole 'nother level of nonsense.
Show this thread -
This email I just received from
@ElsevierConnect is some pretty high quality trolling.pic.twitter.com/PJHTYHmY0z
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.