is an excellent scientist and a responsible professional. She likely read the paper more carefully than most. She grasped some of its strengths and weaknesses that are not apparent from a cursory glance. Below, I will mention a few points some may have missed.
1/

The paper does NOT evaluate the effect of school closures. Instead it conflates all ‘educational settings' into a single category, which includes universities.
2/
The paper primarily evaluates data from March and April 2020. The article is not particularly clear about this limitation, but the information can be found in the hefty supplementary material.
3/
The authors applied four different regression methods (some fancier than others) to the same data. The outcomes of the different regression models are correlated (enough to reach statistical significance), but they vary a lot. (heat map on the right below).
4/
The effect of individual interventions is extremely difficult to disentangle as the authors stress themselves. There is a very large number of interventions considered and the model was run on 49 countries and 26 US States (and not >200 countries).
5/
It is challenging to estimate the effect of interventions in the absence of a counterfactual. This difficulty is compounded by likely confounders, such as climate (not mentioned in the paper). Territories that implemented similar interventions might share comparable climate.
6/
This is a sophisticated piece of work, with both strengths and weaknesses. Though, to me, its primary value is the proposed methodological framework rather than its estimates of the efficacy of individual interventions, which efficacy remain debatable.
7/
There is room for scientific discussion about how solid the estimates presented in the paper may be. Though, accusing colleagues expressing reservations about the robustness of some of the findings of 'spreading disinformation' feels inadequate, to say the least.
8/
This paper has generated endless conflict. One intriguing feature is that all the spats are around 'educational settings'. Interestingly, the paper also claims that T&T and isolation of cases, among other measures, are completely ineffective, yet no one seems to care ... 🤔
9/

More from Science

Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

https://t.co/mzS7vVSREJ

https://t.co/353PdAX2fa

https://t.co/3yBImjOdd4

In some cases, almost 100% of the light energy can be converted to the second harmonic frequency. These cases typically involve intense pulsed laser beams passing through large crystals, and careful alignment to obtain phase matching.
Ever since @JesseJenkins and colleagues work on a zero carbon US and this work by @DrChrisClack and colleagues on incorporating DER, I've been having the following set of thoughts about how to reduce the risk of failure in a US clean energy buildout. Bottom line is much more DER.


Typically, when we see zero-carbon electricity coupled to electrification of transport and buildings, implicitly standing behind that is totally unprecedented buildout of the transmission system. The team from Princeton's modeling work has this in spades for example.

But that, more even than the new generation required, runs straight into a thicket/woodchipper of environmental laws and public objections that currently (and for the last 50y) limit new transmission in the US. We built most transmission prior to the advent of environmental law.

So what these studies are really (implicitly) saying is that NEPA, CEQA, ESA, §404 permitting, eminent domain law, etc, - and the public and democratic objections that drive them - will have to change in order to accommodate the necessary transmission buildout.

I live in a D supermajority state that has, for at least the last 20 years, been in the midst of a housing crisis that creates punishing impacts for people's lives in the here-and-now and is arguably mostly caused by the same issues that create the transmission bottlenecks.

You May Also Like