21/n Also, what's the impact of parents/carers getting sick and dying? Presumably this will have an outsized impact on the children it affects, which would cause (based on this model) large increases in YLL
-
Show this thread
-
22/n Ok, there's another HUGE problem with the study The findings are entirely based on the idea that an extra year of schooling reduces your risk of death by 25%, a figure reached by aggregating studies in a meta-analysis modelpic.twitter.com/va8PWXeBc3
2 replies 3 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
23/n This number is the ENTIRE BASIS for the paper. If schooling reduces mortality by less than 25%, then the number of deaths caused by missed school days will drop as well And we have a problem, because this 25% figure is...wrong
1 reply 3 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
24/n Firstly, we have these top 2 papers. Because they're from the US, they are more heavily weighted than the others (this is arbitrary, but whatever) Except the values for the second paper are flatly incorrectpic.twitter.com/VxC2Krkj3z
1 reply 4 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
25/n Mazumder (2008) did not find a relative risk of 0.65 (0-1.3), it found an RR of 0.89 (0.74-1.04) The paper is here. I've read it very carefully and this appears to be the main finding from the author https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/economic-perspectives/2008/2qtr2008-part1-mazumder …pic.twitter.com/1FY15LCXFe
1 reply 2 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
26/n So the number is wrong, but this brings us to another issue - the two papers at the top that were double-weighted...are ON THE SAME DATASET This is a massive issuepic.twitter.com/trCaHySTYE
2 replies 5 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
27/n You see, Lleras-Muney compiled an estimate based on a number of factors on the reduction in risk from 1 year of extra schooling. Mazumder, three years later, took that same database and re-analyzed it considering additional factors, and estimated a lower reductionpic.twitter.com/2pWUNsP6Qb
1 reply 3 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
28/n However you slice it, it's inappropriate to just bung these two estimates together into a model and treat them as separate. I would argue that the Mazumder paper is probably a better estimate, but either way what they've done here is wrong
1 reply 2 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
29/n If I re-run the meta-analysis they've purported to use with the correct numbers, we end up with this graph instead. A relative reduction in risk of death of 5% for every year of schooling This is A QUARTER of the estimate used in the studypic.twitter.com/xQk5F1tDzT
2 replies 5 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
Yes lol, that was a typo
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.