Based on these flawed calculations, the authors proceed to an even more questionable comparison of the YLL due to the lockdown school closures and YLL due to the direct COVID19 deaths through 30 May 2020. ~25m kids aged 5–11 vs 88k c19 deaths of the ongoing pandemic. Really? /16
-
Show this thread
-
There are many more issues with the assumptions and the analysis. See many of them, in the linked thread by
@GidMK
/171 reply 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
Through these very problematic (to frame it nicely) assumptions and correspondingly shaky results the authors arrive at the very big conclusions claiming that their paper provided sufficient evidence to keep the schools open. It did not. /18
1 reply 1 retweet 35 likesShow this thread -
Such policy recommendations are
downright irresponsible
and, if heard and implemented, are
very dangerous
/19pic.twitter.com/4ePMe7iOOv
1 reply 2 retweets 63 likesShow this thread -
Ilya Kashnitsky Retweeted Per Engzell
I need to mention: I came across this paper featured by
@ProfEmilyOster (61.2k followers) and re-tweeted non-critically by@pengzell who wrote a brilliant paper w/@MarkDVerhagen and@ArunFrey on the drop in school performance due to the pandemic
/20https://twitter.com/pengzell/status/1322796588746575872 …Ilya Kashnitsky added,
2 replies 1 retweet 33 likesShow this thread -
Ilya Kashnitsky Retweeted Dimitri Christakis
It would be nice to hear your thoughts on my critical review. I'd also appreciate to hear from the authors:
@DAChristakis@drwilvancleve@Zimmermanfred Especially since the main author considers the piece one of the most important work ever /21 FINhttps://twitter.com/DAChristakis/status/1326922136095617024 …Ilya Kashnitsky added,
10 replies 2 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
Here is a bonus from eSupplement. This is how the crucial risk ratio of 0.75 was estimated from the 7 studies. Am I the only one seeing this averaging weird: 5 EU studies w/ odds close to 1 + 2 US studies w/ broad uncertainty = 0.75 ???
asking opinion of meta- researchers
/22pic.twitter.com/iJe7ZMpvw7
6 replies 1 retweet 34 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @ikashnitsky @dsquintana and
Oh yeh that's odd. They artificially doubled the weight of the US study estimates with no real justification. Also, did they use a fixed effects model?
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ikashnitsky and
Ok, redid the analysis. I think they've actually just weighted it arbitrarily themselves, here's the random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting. Increases the RR from 0.75 to 0.95!pic.twitter.com/p6sUm6nc1D
4 replies 4 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ikashnitsky and
This actually makes WAY more sense to me. An 0.75 reduction PER YEAR of schooling on all-cause mortality would mean that missing a few years of school would nearly halve your life expectancy
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes
It also makes more sense given those confidence intervals. The original model they used is nearly 50% based on the two studies with the widest confidence bounds, with the more precise studies having a nearly 0% weighting!
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.