5/n Well, the obesity rates were taken from the CIA Factbook This is manifestly inappropriate. The factbook was last updated in 2016 for these figures and mostly references reports that are 6+ YEARS oldpic.twitter.com/nWGQSW7k3l
Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
5/n Well, the obesity rates were taken from the CIA Factbook This is manifestly inappropriate. The factbook was last updated in 2016 for these figures and mostly references reports that are 6+ YEARS oldpic.twitter.com/nWGQSW7k3l
6/n I'm not sure what meaning we could take from correlating COVID-19 deaths in August with obesity rates from 2012, but it's certainly not a lot
7/n The physical inactivity data was taken from the WHO's global data repository, which was updated in 2018. This is better, but it's still aggregating data from vastly different surveys done in different ways in different countries across the worldpic.twitter.com/0aKHzPObyX
8/n The government stringency index was taken from Oxford data, which you can see here. You can see some problems with this almost immediately as wellpic.twitter.com/ofuXIpmACy
9/n For example, in August (when this study compared countries), Australia was rated as 75/100 on the stringency index. This is because one state of the country (Victoria) had extremely strict restrictions in place
10/n But for most of Australia, life was largely back to normal (except for travel) by August! Similarly, India is given a stringency index of 81(!) even though the response there varies quite a bit by states as well
11/n Which brings us to a more central issue with this entire analysis - the ecological fallacy I've written about this beforehttps://gidmk.medium.com/why-you-might-be-wrong-about-covid-19-the-ecological-fallacy-e8a47a030902 …
It was a *statistical* analysis with lots of data. Your "ecological fallacy" argument might apply for Australia, but most likely it would disappear when considering all countries. Yeah, still not a huge dataset, but pretty big.
The fact that they ran some Pearson correlations and a principal components analysis makes absolutely no difference in the fundamental weaknesses of the study
You seem to be implying that e.g. the stringency index is essentially random, which would result in zero correlation. But they also measured the correlation e.g. btwn the SI and the containment (probably as a sanity check), which are strongly correlate.
That's not what I'm implying at all. I'm saying the numbers are essentially meaningless for the analysis that has been attempted because you cannot assume that the country-level index is reflective of the individuals. Classic ecological fallacy
Not sure I understand... you're saying people all over the world simply don't do as they are told by their governments?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.