7/n To further explain, what this shows is the expected marginal benefit of each intervention So, for example, say you've already cancelled all gatherings over 100. Cancelling gatherings over 10 people will have an additional 36% reduction in the number of new cases
17/n I should also note that I am not an expert in Bayesian statistical methods, so I might've missed something important in terms of limitations of the models used
-
-
18/n Another worthwhile point is that I think that this paper is pretty good, but as with everything I could be wrong Point out any errors I've missed!
Show this thread -
19/n Thread worth reading on some more limitations of the studyhttps://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1290364813755863041?s=20 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ignore the Bayesian aspect for a moment and consider whether they've addressed the limitations of other studies, e.g. outcome classification and timing of interventions, which are nonrandom I.e. masks usual came later? Maybe so, but doesn't seem like it from your review.
-
I think they've made a very good effort, and for everything except masks they report some ability to analyse these things separately. Masks, because often adopted late, appear to be the biggest outlier
- Show replies
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.