2/n The paper is a systematic review performed by three very highly-regarded economists who have also been extremely anti-lockdown since March 2020. You can find it here: https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf …
-
-
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet
-
3/n As others have noted, this is a "working paper", which essentially means it's not peer-reviewed and reflects only the opinions of the three authors namedpic.twitter.com/z2zoJOivuq
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
4/n The first issues with the review itself are very basic - the inclusions/exclusions None of the criteria make much sense to me
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
5/n For example, all papers with modelled counterfactuals are excluded. Because this is the most common method used in infectious disease assessments, this has the practical impact of excluding most epidemiological research from the reviewpic.twitter.com/UUZckGOWzE
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
6/n The authors claim that they only include studies using a "difference in difference approach", but according to other economists, well...https://twitter.com/AndreasShrugged/status/1488993038915489794?s=20&t=UyUq2tuM-dCCT45ysF_HJA …
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
7/n So, the included studies certainly aren't representative of research as a whole on lockdowns - not even close. Many of the most robust papers on the impact of lockdowns are, by definition, excluded
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
8/n We can see the impact of this in the main table of results. This is the source of that 0.2% figure you might've seen thrown around This is just a useless meta-analysispic.twitter.com/m0kFiimtAt
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
9/n Why is it useless? Well, let's look at the studies here Bjørnskov = Oxford stringency index correlated to crude death reports Shiva/Molana = Oxford stringency index correlated to crude death reports Stockenhuber = well, you get the gistpic.twitter.com/AysnpST5r8
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
10/n The only differences in these studies are the countries included, timing, corrections for confounding, and lags. Also some modelling differences
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
11/n One study that's noticeably absent is the Hale et al paper which PRODUCED THE OXFORD STRINGENCY INDEX ON WHICH ALL OF THIS IS BASED They estimated a massive reduction in death due to lockdownpic.twitter.com/v2pxgtCcoI
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
12/n If you've got 7 papers that take the same databases and manipulate them in different ways, it doesn't really make sense to calculate a mean weighted by standard error and call that the result. It's just bizarre
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
13/n But it gets even weirder. If you look at the model, almost the entire weighting is based on this paper, Chisadza et al But Chisadza et al found a BENEFIT for lockdownspic.twitter.com/yS9CIedzFX
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
14/n Indeed, the authors of this paper have publicly disagreed with the review, and accused the review authors of having a predetermined conclusion when writing the paperhttps://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1489229847973015565?s=20&t=UyUq2tuM-dCCT45ysF_HJA …
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
15/n If you look closely, it seems that there are similar issues with quite a lot of the included research. For example, in table 5 much of the aggregate model is based on this paper...pic.twitter.com/aBeJlBxMPZ
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
16/n ...the senior author of which has agreed that you can't really interpret their regression estimates in this wayhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1489386417885040643?s=20&t=UyUq2tuM-dCCT45ysF_HJA …
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
17/n Another included paper found that significant restrictions were effective, but is included in this review as estimating a 13.1% INCREASE in fatalities. The maths used to derive this is pretty opaquepic.twitter.com/WolYRPzi88
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
18/n All of this adds up to a very weird review paper. The authors exclude many of the most rigorous studies, including those that are the entire basis for their meta-analysis in the first place
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
19/n They then take a number of papers, most of which found that restrictive NPIs had a benefit on mortality, and derive some mathematical estimate from the regression coefficients indicating less benefit than the papers suggest
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
20/n There's no real rating of the potential for bias in the included research (the review only uses these 4 really bizarre 'quality dimensions' which...well)pic.twitter.com/jTiDRmYhBn
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
21/n All of this together means that the actual numbers produced in the review are largely uninterpretable. The "quality" assessment is meaningless, and the numbers themselves not really correct
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
22/n In reality, the impact of "lockdowns" is very hard to assess, if for no other reason than we have no good definition of "lockdown" in the first place. The authors of this review define a "lockdown" as LITERALLY ANY INTERVENTIONpic.twitter.com/KY5655Hnxi
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
23/n However, this is certainly not how the analysis is actually done. In most cases, it seems the authors have taken estimates for stay-at-home orders as their practical definition of "lockdown" (this is pretty common)
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
24/n And honestly, I'd agree that the evidence for marginal benefit from stay-at-home orders once you've already implemented dozens of restrictions is probably quite weak. One of the included studies, Spiegel et al, makes this point rather wellhttps://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/34/11/5266/6304878#305986489 …
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
25/n That being said, if we consider "lockdown" to be any compulsory restriction at all, the reality is that virtually all research shows a (short-term) mortality benefit from at least some restrictions
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
26/n You can even see this IN THE REVIEW. The authors found benefits for compulsory facemasks, business closures, border closures/quarantine, and school closures. Some of the benefits were very large!pic.twitter.com/ZPzWnHz6Oo
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
27/n Imo if we define "lockdown" as "the marginal benefit of stay-at-home orders on top of many other restrictions", it's probably fair to argue from this paper that the benefit might be quite small
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
28/n Indeed, that's been shown before, and is quite a reasonable position based on the evidence! The -0.2% figure is pretty meaningless, but the general idea is not totally wild
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
29/n If we define "lockdown" as "any compulsory restriction against COVID-19", however, this paper actually shows quite the opposite, that many compulsory restrictions are very effective at controlling the disease
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
30/n All of this comes with the huge proviso that the estimates in the paper probably aren't very useful, and the specific numbers are likely to be quite a bit off
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet -
31/n As a minor addendum, I would also note that I personally agree that a lot of people originally underestimated the impact of voluntary behaviour change on COVID-19 death rates - it's probably not wrong to argue that lockdowns weren't as effective as we initially thought
Εμφάνιση αυτού του νήματος Tweet - Εμφάνιση απαντήσεων
Νέα συζήτηση -
Η φόρτωση φαίνεται ότι παίρνει λίγο χρόνο.
Το Twitter ενδέχεται να βρίσκεται σε υπερφόρτωση ή να αντιμετωπίζει ένα προσωρινό πρόβλημα. Προσπαθήστε ξανά ή επισκεφτείτε τη σελίδα της Κατάστασης του Twitter για περισσότερες πληροφορίες.