The basic explanation here is that the original article looked at whether Google "residential" mobility data was correlated with COVID-19 death rates, and found no association
-
-
Show this thread
-
There are significant drawbacks with that methodology, some of which I outlined in a threadhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1369078568844595200?s=19 …
Show this thread -
However, together with
@lonnibesancon@RaphaelWimmer and@FLAHAULT we have identified quite a few further problemsinShow this thread -
In particular,
@RaphaelWimmer has found that repeating the author's methodology on simulated data where an effect of lockdowns is clearly visible results in no effectShow this thread -
Even using the dataset that the authors sent through, which does show an effect, slight perturbations in the data seem to remove it
Show this thread -
What this means is that it is likely that the methodology in the study would not identify a benefit of lockdowns even unless they were unrealistically effective, and even then almost never
Show this thread -
Forgot to mention - the original article has an Altmetric of 7,000 already. Just one of the tweets about it got 3,500 RTs. It's been all over the news already and has 150k accesses
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sorry, but my mind started fazing out a bit when I read "staying at home doesn't prevent covid", how do these people believe virusses spread? Mail? Fed express? The water supply?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Obviously the reverse still isn't true. Theoretically lock downs could work, but do they work in the real world? Killing the patient, also kills the tumor. That's not what we mean with working.
-
Lock downs obviously dont kill the patient, so what is your point?
- 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.