Thing is, it happens to all of us (I am no exception). It is commonplace to be mistaken, but rare indeed that people will own up to their errors
See, my problem is that everyone thinks that they tick most of the boxes on that list. No one thinks that they're too certain, or ignoring human health, or unkind
We're all the heroes of our own story
But being honest about the facts? That is a simple gauge of how interested a person is in making a difference
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I do find it fascinating how the usual "academic civility/silencing" brigade have completely ignored this whole episode. Apparently it's fine to publicly defame junior colleagues as long as it's in service of school reopening
It's also interesting to note that this is quite literally a case of academic "silencing", at least insofar as the journal and authors have tried their hardest to quash any hint of our critique
Without twitter, and the media attention it brought, I doubt very much that this paper would ever have been corrected. The only reason the authors were forced to respond is that the editors were contacted by the Guardian for comment
The story continues - after @ikashnitsky and I pointed out that this paper was mathematically impossible, and had numerous errors, it was partially corrected
His initial response to us, when we privately emailed him about the issue in the paper, was, to quote, "you are not just right because you THINK you are" (caps=italics)
Now, remember, this is not a minor paper
Altmetric of 3,400, in dozens of news articles, and it's been cited by the WHO and EU already
This paper is impacting school reopening policy across the globe
The entire field of epidemiology is about balancing cost and benefit, risk and reward. There is no choice without consequences, even the seemingly trivial ones
Most Master of Public Health courses (MPH) have a health economics unit for precisely this reason. Enacting a policy in one place invariably (at best) takes away resources that you would otherwise use somewhere else
This is a big part of the reason I spend so much time trying to convey nuance. There is no decision we can make for public health that is purely good
It's likely that the marginal benefit - the additional improvement on top of other things - of very restrictive COVID-19 interventions like stay-at-home orders may be quite small
However, this is probably equally true of the COST of these interventions
It's something that I've seen completely ignored by most anti-restriction campaigners, but I think it's an important point that we should consider
Yes, if you've already limited how much people can go out to restaurants etc then closing them entirely might not reduce transmission all that much
But it also won't have the same negative impact either!
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)