This paper has recently been published, and is stoking headlines that tens of millions of people have been infected with #COVID19 in Britain already
It also contains numerous mathematical and epidemiological errors
This is worrying
https://twitter.com/DrAdrianHeald/status/1260951024954638337 …
In this case, the authors calculated a variable (R(ADIR)) from new case numbers, and then regressed it against case numbers THESE TWO VARIABLES WILL ALWAYS BE CORRELATED BECAUSE THEY ARE CALCULATED FROM THE SAME INFORMATION
-
-
It's like regressing your age in years against the average age you've been over the last decade, and then shouting "Eureka!" when you find they are closely tied Again, a simple mistake, and something a first-year stats student is taught not to do
Show this thread -
The THIRD big mistake is epidemiological. The authors assumed - with no evidence whatsoever - that an R(ADIR) of 0 meant immunity This is WRONGpic.twitter.com/2eCmbzdVDH
Show this thread -
Let's look at R(ADIR) It is basically the average of the ratio of new cases today to new cases over the last 5 days So where does immunity come in??? The authors don't say
pic.twitter.com/6uhb6rGvYp
Show this thread -
Thing is, we can quite easily see many reasons for R(ADIR) to be 0 - this simply means that there are no new cases today (essentially) The most likely reason for no new cases? SOCIAL DISTANCING
Show this thread -
Assuming - without any evidence whatsoever - that R(ADIR) = 0 means immunity is simply wrong It is possible (with a vaccine) that this could be the case, but it is by no means plausible
Show this thread -
On to the FOURTH big mistake: multiplying weirdly Basically they used that linear extrapolation to find that R(ADIR) = 0 when total cases/1,000 = 6.6, and then assumed that since this meant immunity, the other 993.4 people must've been exposed to COVID-19pic.twitter.com/MoH05TDwkZ
Show this thread -
This is nonsensical. Even taking their entire approach at face value, the correlation between these two variables was only r^2 = 0.22 It is, again, simply wrong to just multiply the values out like this, because quite clearly there is more going on
Show this thread -
There are numerous other errors in the study, but I think I've made my point If I were the author or the journal, I'd retract the study immediately But that's just me
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.