2/n The newest response is here, and you can have a look at the previous discussion as well:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13599 …
-
Show this thread
-
3/n For reference, if you've forgotten, the original article basically argued that "more" restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (mrNPIs) such as lockdowns didn't work to prevent COVID-19 cases It is MASSIVELY popular, with an Altmetric of 19k and dozens of citationspic.twitter.com/VTqbA6rWNP
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
4/n Our basic arguments are pretty simple: 1. Sample size - this study uses a very small sample. That's not really debated by the authors, and it's a limitationpic.twitter.com/pETDhIA4cT
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
5/n (Weirdly, they have also contradicted their original paper in the replies to the piece - where before they said that their paper had data for every country available, they're now saying they applied a strange exclusion)pic.twitter.com/M6UYVpzDFP
2 replies 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
6/n 2. The classification of countries as "high" or "low" restriction is arbitrary. In their reply, the authors literally just contradicted us, so we've now got quite a bit of text demonstrating why this is an issuepic.twitter.com/wKQfmK56FI
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
7/n This is pretty simple - if you don't explain why (say) South Korea is a "low" restriction country, how can we compare it to "high" restriction ones? The categorization is fundamental to the entire paper
1 reply 0 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
8/n 3. Issues with the model. In particular, the policy variablepic.twitter.com/JW7MKXu6tY
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
9/n 4. Issues with the use of time lags, and the time period studied In particular, the authors say that they analyzed the data up until the "elimination of rapid growth in the first wave"pic.twitter.com/ie6Qt71EyY
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
10/n This is a problem because it means that the analysis is entirely limited to the 'upwards' part of the epidemic curve If mrNPIs have an effect that is mostly seen on the decline, this would by definition be missed
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
11/n 5. While we also had some quibbles about language, the final major argument is to do with the model againpic.twitter.com/B0a0rh6UMS
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread
12/n Ultimately, we still have the same overall gripe. It is pretty much impossible from the evidence presented in the original research to conclude that mrNPIs work or do notpic.twitter.com/YH4MMbZBJg
-
-
13/n Indeed, as we point out, unless the authors spend some time delineating exactly what a "more" or "less" restrictive response to COVID-19 actually is, there isn't much you can take home from the analysis anyway
1 reply 0 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
14/n My personal position remains mostly the same on these interventions, that more restrictive ones probably weren't that beneficial in the early days of the pandemic, but that it's really, really hard to know either way
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow 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.