One thing that's quite funny to note about the awful @JAMANetworkOpen study that has recently been incompletely corrected is that it implies that school holidays are killing people
See, the authors assume that, in the US, every additional year of schooling reduces your risk of death by ~46% across the entire lifespan, and that any/all days missed in terms of school are precisely equivalent to missing schooling
This is not some vague sidepoint, but a central assumption underlying the entire model. Every day missed from school is precisely equivalent to missing lifetime schooling by a fixed amount per child
Now, in the US children have (according to Wikipedia) roughly 14 weeks (5 days per week) of holiday per year of schooling, with a total of 12 years of mandatory schooling
So 12*14*5 = 840 days of missed school due to holidays
Translating that using the formulae above, this means that children who have school holidays cause 2.2 years fewer educational attainment for boys and 1.8 years fewer for girls
Using the numbers that the authors have plugged into their study, this would mean that school holidays in the United States cause children to be at a ~75% increased risk of death across their lifespan
In other words, you could save countless lives by abolishing school holidays forever
Of course, in the EU, again based on the authors' arbitrary decisions, this would have no real impact at all
Anyway, just a funny side-point about a truly atrocious study that has in some ways only been made worse by the authors 'correction'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
3/n The paper takes 10 countries' worth of data, and compares their COVID-19 case numbers against the restrictions they had in place in early 2020, comparing those with less-restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (lrNPIs) with more-restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs)
I do find it quite remarkable that people who have been making testable predictions that have completely failed to come through every day for MONTHS are still being given so much air
For example, a testable prediction made by Sunetra Gupta, Anders Tegnell, and others was that areas most impacted by COVID-19 in March/April would be substantially protected from any resurgence. This has proven largely wrong
This was, in part, based on the prediction by Gupta that the UK (and others) had already reached "herd immunity", or were close to it
Yes, this applies to COVID-19 as well. Stop blaming people for being sick
"But they didn't wear a mask" lots of people who DID wear a mask got COVID-19, it's not perfect protection, you can't apply morality to something that is largely out of your control
"Lockdowns don't work, you can't control COVID-19 with govt restrictions!"
Pretty much every state in Australia has now controlled an exponential outbreak using a variety of restrictions, if we can do it you can too
Hopefully we can get enough people vaccinated by mid-2021 to help alleviate the issue anyway, but it remains remarkably ignorant to say that govt action can't control COVID-19 outbreaks when it very clearly can
Whether you WANT to control the disease with such measures is a very different question, but the obvious fact that you CAN is really not up for debate
Statements made by @MichaelYeadon3 by date, against the number of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the UK
At a certain point, I do wonder why people still listen
And yes, for anyone interested in facts, most positive SARS-CoV-2 tests are true positives (even in the UK), this is not some conspiracy but actually quite simple mathematics
In 2017/18 and 18/19 the peak admissions across the UK to ICU/HDU units for flu did not top 300 per week, making the current situation at least 5x worse than your average season