17/n But forgetting that, this is a classic example of the ecological fallacy You CANNOT assume that country-level obesity rates apply to the people who got COVID-19 - if you don't check that this is true, whatever you produce is basically nonsensicalhttps://medium.com/@gidmk/why-you-might-be-wrong-about-covid-19-the-ecological-fallacy-e8a47a030902 …
-
-
28/n Even if the authors make the suggested changes up until 25/n, they'd just end up with a meaningless correlation without measures like these, which are an enormous amount of work The thing about ecological studies is that the good ones take A LOT of time
Show this thread -
29/n Oh, another thing The authors keep maintaining on Twitter that this study was "random" because patients didn't choose what treatment they got, countries did This is absolute nonsense
Show this thread -
30/n Firstly, it is misdefining random If ANYONE chooses the treatment, then it's not random BY DEFINITION Random means no one chooses, it's that simple
Show this thread -
31/n But also - PATIENTS DID CHOOSE This is where we get back to the ecological fallacy - it is absurd to suggest that individuals within countries didn't choose to take HCQ. Even countries that authorised it had adopters and non-adopters
Show this thread -
32/n This protocol was BY NO POSSIBLE DEFINITION "random" Using the term is incorrect, and at best ignorant not just of the scientific terminology but also the colloquial meaning of the word
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.