Here is another very enjoyable conversation, with @Pandata19’s scientific advisory board member, Dr Jay Bhattacharya. Key ideas in this thread.
More from Science
@mugecevik 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/
1/
I've recently come across a disinformation around evidence relating to school closures and community transmission that's been platformed prominently. This arises from flawed understanding of the data that underlies this evidence, and the methodologies used in these studies. pic.twitter.com/VM7cVKghgj
— Deepti Gurdasani (@dgurdasani1) February 1, 2021
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/

You May Also Like
Oh my Goodness!!!
I might have a panic attack due to excitement!!
Read this thread to the end...I just had an epiphany and my mind is blown. Actually, more than blown. More like OBLITERATED! This is the thing! This is the thing that will blow the entire thing out of the water!
Has this man been concealing his true identity?
Is this man a supposed 'dead' Seal Team Six soldier?
Witness protection to be kept safe until the right moment when all will be revealed?!
Who ELSE is alive that may have faked their death/gone into witness protection?
Were "golden tickets" inside the envelopes??
Are these "golden tickets" going to lead to their ultimate undoing?
Review crumbs on the board re: 'gold'.
#SEALTeam6 Trump re-tweeted this.
I might have a panic attack due to excitement!!
Read this thread to the end...I just had an epiphany and my mind is blown. Actually, more than blown. More like OBLITERATED! This is the thing! This is the thing that will blow the entire thing out of the water!
Tik Tok pic.twitter.com/8X3oMxvncP
— Scotty Mar10 (@Allenma15086871) December 29, 2020
Has this man been concealing his true identity?
Is this man a supposed 'dead' Seal Team Six soldier?
Witness protection to be kept safe until the right moment when all will be revealed?!
Who ELSE is alive that may have faked their death/gone into witness protection?

Were "golden tickets" inside the envelopes??

Are these "golden tickets" going to lead to their ultimate undoing?
Review crumbs on the board re: 'gold'.

#SEALTeam6 Trump re-tweeted this.
