By the way, I see that all the pro-lockdown hysterics are outraged that Johnson is still listening to crackpots like Gupta, but what they're effectively arguing is that instead they listen to the geniuses from Imperial College, as if their track-record were any better.
Not only are the researchers at ICL who were arguing that a 2-week long lockdown in September would magically make later restrictions unnecessary are evidently incompetent, but they're also intellectually dishonest, as I showed in the post below.
Of course, the piece also contains this talking point, because no dumb lockdown apology is complete without it. I will have more to say about this soon...
"A tWo-WeEk CiRCuIt-BReAkER lOcKDowN wIlL PReVeNt tHE nEeD FoR mORe ReStRIcTIoNs LaTEr." (very intelligent scientist who totally knows what he's talking about and should definitely be in charge)
At this rate they'll soon explain to us that 1 out of 10* people must sacrifice their first-born to appease Covidus, the god of pandemics, because science says so.
*1 out of 5 if you use different parameters in the model that was published in Nature (see supplementary materials)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Now, by the Law of Lemoine about papers that purport to show the world is terribly unfair, if I go and dig into the paper's data/tables, I'm almost guaranteed to find something politically incorrect. I should work but I don't know if I'll resist the temptation.
Okay I couldn't resist and I didn't have to look for very long before the Law of Lemoine was once again vindicated 😂 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
The reception of this post has been very positive, thanks a lot to everyone for your kind words and for sharing it, but I also got some of the same criticisms I get every time I publish something, so I wanted to address them quickly. 1/n
So one complaint I get almost every time is that, if I think I'm right, then I should try to get my work published in a peer reviewed journal. The suggestion is often that, if I don't, it's because I'm afraid it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. 2/n
There are many reasons why I generally don't want to submit my work to peer reviewed journals, some of which I discuss below, but let me start by saying that my fear of the towering intellects who run Nature and saw no problems with Flaxman et al.'s paper is not one of them. 3/n
It's a critique of Flaxman et al.'s paper, which is constantly cited as proof that lockdowns are the only interventions that really works. It's already been cited almost 450 times even though it was only published in June. 2/n nature.com/articles/s4158…
It found that only lockdowns really had a meaningful effect on transmission in Europe during the first wave. Here is a chart that show the results in a few countries that were included in the study. 3/n
Unfortunately, this piece will only strengthen the myth that China engaged in massive and systematic fudging of COVID-19 data, when if you read it carefully it shows no such thing and doesn't tell us anything important that we didn't already know. 1/n
In particular, when the tweet says that China underreported COVID-19 numbers, what the article shows is just that, as there weren't enough tests, the authorities at times only reported cases that had been laboratory-confirmed by PCR but not cases identified by symptoms. 2/n
This is not new, I already discussed this at length in my essay back in September. We have known for *months* that the definition of a case used by the authorities changed several times, which affected the numbers. 3/n quillette.com/2020/09/06/the…
Wow, I hadn't actually read the Nature paper that allegedly showed that lockdowns had saved more than 3 million lives in Europe last Spring, but now that I have I'm utterly shocked this worthless piece of garbage was published. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Also, something didn't make sense about the results and the only explanation I could think of implied that the conclusion people drew from that study was totally unwarranted, but it was impossible to tell from their description of the results whether my hypothesis was correct.
So I downloaded the code and ran the analysis myself so I could take a closer look at the results and, surprise, it confirmed that my hypothesis was right, which presumably is why they neglected to describe this particular result in the paper or the supplementary materials...
Je suis contre le confinement, mais la baisse du nombre de morts en Suède est un artefact du délai d'enregistrement des morts. Compte tenu de l'évolution du nombre de cas, ça va inévitablement augmenter rapidement dans les jours qui viennent, il n'y a pas de magie. 1/n
D'ailleurs, quand on fait un simple ajustement pour tenir compte du délai dans l'enregistrement des morts, on voit très clairement qu'en réalité ça augmente rapidement. Encore une fois, je suis contre le confinement, mais il ne faut pas se raconter d'histoire. 2/n
De la même façon, le nombre de morts par million peut sembler faible, mais c'est le nombre par jour. En France, si on prend le nombre de morts cumulés sur l'année, ça va représenter au moins 10% de la mortalité normale à la fin de l'année. Ce n'est quand même pas rien. 3/n