I mean, they could've easily not published a research letter in NEJM, there are many other journals with longer limits. It's very pertinent information that they had on hand at the time, I can't see why it's not included especially given that the mortality for 1-16 yo is
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
If he had included it then he would also have had to include an explanation as to why the excess deaths are not due to covid-19 To me that is just a detour not giving anybody any useful information about the impact from covid-19
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @JacobGudiol
Nah that doesn't really make sense. It's clearly a pertinent point that is quite obviously important to the argument, spending a sentence or 2 (or even just using the supplementary materials) to explain would've been trivial
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @JacobGudiol
Also, part of the issue for me is that what is described in the email seems to be p-hacking. If you redo your analysis until you get the result you want, but don't publish this, it's not great
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
You can complain about the methodology. But the article you shared and the partial mail that you shared painted the picture of Ludwigsson finding the anomaly and then deciding to bury it Instead the mail shows that he started to investigate it to find a cause
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @JacobGudiol @GidMK
Why would you even send the mail if your intent was to not care about it? It makes no sense to me. And the fact that Science Magazine changed their article after publishing it without telling anyone indicates to me that they know they did send out the wrong message to
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @JacobGudiol
And yet, no mention of this analysis made it into the paper until (from my understanding) an FOI request? I can think of a single sentence to add to the paper to explain this finding, but they didn't do it
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Here is the deaths per year in the relevant age groups in Sweden between 2010-2020. Can be explored here https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101I/DodaHandelseK/ … I don't see how presenting numbers and the explaining that it is likely noice helps anyone?pic.twitter.com/5morhzWvNQ
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JacobGudiol @GidMK
Data presenting cause of deaths in different age groups according to deaths certificates for the first 6 months was also published by SCB in November There were no deaths <20 years where covid-19 was the suspected cause
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JacobGudiol
I'm confused here, because clearly the researchers knew it was an issue otherwise why investigate?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Let me put it this way - this was clearly something that the authors knew about, investigated, and considered to be an issue that potentially derailed the narrative. And yet, not addressed at all in the paper, except lumped in with other numbers. That is a bad look
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @JacobGudiol
It is potentially entirely a fluke. It is also possible that excess mortality in this age group was influenced by limited hospital capacity, or that under-reporting of COVID in children was a problem. There is some uncertainty there
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @JacobGudiol
It's also worrying that what the email itself describes is still basically p-hacking - only reporting the analyses that agree with your argument is literally the definition of p-hacking
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
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.