25/n If nothing else, the most basic additions that would make the website slightly less worthless would be - details of statistical analysis - measure of HCQ CONSUMPTION by country - deaths BY INFECTION as the outcome - control for other govt measures to prevent COVID-19
-
Show this thread
-
26/n Another point that's worth making - the authors say that HCQ is preventive of COVID-19 The methodology is not even vaguely close to what you'd need to know if that's true
1 reply 5 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
27/n You'd want to see case numbers by day, along with every intervention (i.e. social distancing, school closures etc) and the day they were implemented for every country on the list Then, number of HCQ doses given by day AT AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM
4 replies 3 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
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
2 replies 7 retweets 41 likesShow 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
3 replies 4 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @c19analysis
That's just a misunderstanding of the word random. Firstly, patients did choose within countries and secondly countries choosing is by definition not random. Random means no one chooses, it's that simple
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @c19analysis
This isn't complete perfection, this is simple terminology. It isn't random and using that word is wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Nonsense. I have generated randomization schedules myself, it is not hard. You just need prospective enrollment and some method of randomization to make things random, your study simply doesn't do that. You are wrong to use to word, it's very simple
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @c19analysis
No idea why you're linking to that paper, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. Your methodology is not random, you made no attempt to randomize anything, thus the word random is wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
End of 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.