This is a fascinating example of a complete misrepresentation of risk
- the risk for a 58 year old from COVID-19 is actually quite high (around 1 in 200 risk of death)
- the risk from being inside is complex, but likely minimal
Now, social isolation is harder to assess, and it obviously varies by person, but given the evidence we have on excess mortality in places with long lockdowns that haven't seen a massive increase, it's mathematically impossible for it to be higher than that from COVID-19
Moreover, going out and about during a pandemic has implications for people other than yourself, who may not be aware that you are so blasé about risks
Anyway, this is all based on peer reviewed research, if you're interested in some looking at the age-related IFR of COVID-19 our paper is here
This stuff is fascinating. Pay to low-income workers would increase by $509 billion under the bill, but the CBO has assumed that this is a fixed system and that higher wages -> higher prices -> less spending -> fewer jobs
Even more interesting is when you really dig into the weeds. For example, half of all those 'lost' jobs are estimated to be from teens working at the minimum wage
This is a problem that is quite easily solvable. In Australia we have age-adjusted minimum wages for precisely this reason
Always remember the Golden Rule of international comparisons: the most common explanation for a difference between two places is to do with DATA COLLECTION
For example, maternal mortality. Commonly used as a proxy for the wellbeing of a healthcare system
Also, notoriously complex to measure. Here's some examples from the UK, US, and Australia on the measurement
And those are just the top-line statements! The true divergence between the recording across healthcare systems can be massive, because everything from death certificates to doctors' training differs
Something that is important to note - despite the somewhat fractious debate about this bad paper, I have not nor will I ever say that closing schools is necessarily a good thing
The issue here is a terrible paper that is wrong in many ways. The scientific community should be shocked and appalled at the actions of journals and authors when mistakes are pointed out in their work
But removing this one impactful study from the literature won't shift the needle that much. The question about opening and closing schools during a pandemic remains, as ever, complex
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
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