After we put together a fairly detailed critique, @lonnibesancon, @RaphaelWimmer, @FLAHAULT and I preprinted the work online here https://osf.io/63efj/
At about the same time, the journal added an editor's note saying that the conclusions are subject to criticism
-
-
Show this thread
-
In the two months since, the paper has hit an Altmetric score of 10,824. It's been in the news dozens of times, and has been read by 343,000 people Pretty huge impact!
Show this thread -
I think it's not unfair to say that this single paper has had quite a large impact on COVID-19 interventions worldwide, despite some fairly big issues (here's the conclusion of our letter)pic.twitter.com/WSaPAIADr6
Show this thread -
The fact that a paper can change worldwide policy even while scientists are debating whether the conclusions are meaningful in any way is an amazing indication of how unprepared science in general was for a global pandemic
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There simply isn't a strong global causality between lockdown stringency and Covid outcome, over a 12+ month window especially. It is at best a tertiary factor.https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-lockdowns/ …
-
"Global causality"? If you water down your impact by including data from regions where there hasn't even been much COVID to begin with, of course averaging will dillute data. Be careful when selecting data! Often, "global" is less meaningful than local statistics in hotspots.
- 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.