I don't think that's a common belief per se, but I'd also point out that analysing US states in this fashion could easily be misleading as they have no borders from each other
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Well I’m only analyzing it for US and not extrapolating to other countries. It’s misleading if misinterpreted. Conversely, many tried to argue that “zero Covid is the only path for economic growth” and extrapolate it to the US. I think that’s what’s misleading!
4 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @youyanggu
But without any coordinated federal plan, it's a bit like gun legislation - only so much you could expect in terms of the differences between individual states imo
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
The analysis does not make any assumptions or judgments about the presence of a federal plan. If such a plan was in place, perhaps the results would be different.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @youyanggu
Sure, but the point is that it's hard to garner much meaning from this story of analysis when there are so many externalities that could be influencing the relationship. A bit like that ridiculous linear regression in the NYT about masks and cases a while back
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I do agree with you that the results are inconclusive! Hence no correlation, as explained in the thread. Which begs the question why those who oppose restrictions are labeled as “anti-science” but those who support them aren’t…
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @youyanggu
I wouldn't say that all those who oppose restrictions are "anti-science", but there is a very large crossover between people who dislike NPIs and people who aren't very interested in evidence
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Sure, though I hope you can see the irony for the pro NPIs crowd in the context of this thread. It’s almost as if people on either side already have their minds made up long ago…
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @youyanggu
Lol I'm actually researching that exact question. My personal thought: most people made up their minds in March 2020 and have rarely if ever changed them
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @youyanggu
There is no particular reason why a single factor should be expected to be the determinant of the death outcome, or a coarse grained version of any factor to contain much information (If I was to compute the average stringency index for New Zealand, it would be pretty low...)
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Yes, similarly if you looked at the average stringency index of Australia for 2020 you'd find it to be very high because of Victoria even though for 80% of the population life has been mostly normal since July 2020
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.