6/n Now, the first issue is a pretty obvious one that springs out immediately: Google "residential" mobility data
-
-
17/n Limitations inherent in this sort of research are many and varied, but as one example it's hard to make any realistic inferences about individuals staying at home when your unit of study is Spain vs the United States of America
Show this thread -
18/n Even within Australia, which was included, the massive Victorian outbreak/lockdown skew the figures enormously, because one state with 1/4 of the population locked down while the rest of the country opened up
Show this thread -
19/n We might actually expect null findings from an ecological trial of this sort, because at the country level heterogeneity in local policy irons out a lot of the impact
Show this thread -
20/n It's also worth noting that the study literally does not address the question of whether government orders influenced COVID-19 deaths. Even if you ignore all the other issues, "residential" mobility data simply can't answer that question!
Show this thread -
21/n There are many reasons that people stay at home, and given the opacity of "residential" data it's hard to say much about the results other than that this is a hard question that we may never answer well
Show this thread -
22/n That being said, the idea that this study disproves staying at home as a driver of COVID-19 mortality is obviously wrong - at best, it is an example of how difficult answering that question can be
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.