From the Danish newspaper @berlingske (in Danish):
2/n
"I ugevis har medier og forskere og over hele verden med stigende utålmodighed afventet offentliggørelsen af et stort dansk studie om effekten – eller manglen på samme – af at gå med mundbind i det offentlige rum her under coronapandemien."
3/n
"Nu kan en af de forskere, der har været involveret i studiet, oplyse, at det færdige forskningsresultat er blevet afvist af mindst tre af verdens absolut førende medicinske tidsskrifter."
4/n
"The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine samt den amerikanske lægeforenings tidsskrift JAMA."
5/n
"»De sagde alle nej,« fortæller professor, dr. med. og overlæge ved forskningsafdelingen på Nordsjællands Hospital, Christian Torp-Pedersen."
6/6
There is more, but this is behind a paywall for for copywrite reasons I will not share anymore, but I am sure @berlingske editor @TomJensen1966 is happy to help.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If we look at the forecasts we got from epidemiologists initially in this pandemic it has turned out that they have massively wrong. While tragic the number of people who has died in this pandemic has been much lower than forecasted
2/n The reason given by epidemiologists then is that that is because of interventions - lockdowns. But then you made the wrong kind of forecast - a forecast you forgot to forecast what would happen IF lockdowns were implemented.
3/n And how do you explain the numbers in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan? No lockdown and massively death told.
And Sweden with no lockdown, but with a death told/capita similar to other Western European countries (while larger than in the other Nordic countries).
1/n I have a simple model of US stock market valuation. I like to look at the Wilshire 5000 to get a broad stock market measure. I have just updated the model. Here are the results...
2/n This is actual (log) Wilshire 5000 versus the model. The model is based on two factors only - Potential Nominal GDP (as estimated by CBO) and Baa rated corp. bond yields.
3/n This is the difference (%) between - the actual index level and the model (and +/- 1 standard div).
2/n I estimated Wilshire 5000 as a function of potential US NGDP, corp bond yields (Baa rated and 5-year ruling variance in US industrial production.
3/n Its not rocket science, but the model fits the historical development in US stock prices quite well. Interesting enough the coefficient on potential NGDP is nearly exactly one.