8/n Two very interesting points: 1. Mask mandates for public spaces had negligible impact on the spread of COVID-19 2. Stay at home orders similarly didn't have much additional benefit
-
-
19/n Thread worth reading on some more limitations of the studyhttps://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1290364813755863041?s=20 …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you for the discussion! I was wondering whether this approach adequatly accounts for the timing of policy measures and how relative changes of the dependent are taken into account. Is this approach compareble to diff in diff?
-
It makes some attempt to do so, and has sensitivity analyses addressing this point. Doesn't fully address the issue - they discuss this with relation to masks - but still a good attempt
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not a correction, just a question. Is there a general point that the later (on average) an intervention is introduced the more it risks overlapping early re-opening activities which will distort the impact to R?
-
E.g. in UK masks in shops timing is aligned with re-opening of bars and restaurants (where masks not required). Any benefit to R may get drowned out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks for the review (I'm one of authors)! Absolutely correct that it is hard to infer causation here, especially as the data we have is observational. 1/
-
We attempt to investigate the effect of unobserved factors by including interventions from the OxCGRT dataset and running the model when excluding some interventions that we collected ourselves. The low sensitivity increases our confidence in the effectiveness estimates 2/pic.twitter.com/hhfKnXkOpA
- 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.