Share this page!

Andreas Backhaus Profile picture
Twitter logo
17 Feb, 5 tweets, 2 min read
1) Wissenschaftlich schlechte Arbeiten haben die Angewohnheit, nicht einfach wieder in der Versenkung zu verschwinden, da sie oft geeignet sind, bestimmte Narrative zu bedienen. So taucht die Ioannidis-Studie zu Lockdowns im neuen Policy Paper von @iw_koeln @michael_huether auf.
2) Die Ioannidis-Studie, im Paper zitiert als Bendavid et al. 2021, behauptet, keine Evidenz für die Wirksamkeit restriktiverer Corona-Maßnahmen relativ zu weniger restriktiven gefunden zu haben. Ihre Methodik ist allerdings völlig unglaubwürdig und wurde vielfach kritisiert.
3) Hier von mir in einem Thread mit Verlinkungen zu Kritiken von Seiten anderer Forscher:
4) Und hier noch mal von mir auf Deutsch, weil sie sich unter Lockdown-Gegnern natürlich großer Beliebtheit erfreut:
5) Gerade das Endogenitätsproblem der Studie hätte jedem Ökonom ins Auge springen müssen, wage ich zu behaupten. Wenn's aber gerade passt, zitiert man sie trotzdem und der Unsinn geht in eine neue Runde. iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Andreas Backhaus

Andreas Backhaus Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AndreasShrugged

Andreas Backhaus Profile picture
13 Feb
Im Interview mit der @NZZ äußert der von @Markus_Soeder aus dem Bayerischen Ethikrat geworfene Prof. Christoph Lütge allerlei dreiste Falschbehauptungen, die aus dem Paralleluniversum der Corona-Leugner/-Verharmloser stammen könnten. Ein Faktencheck. (1/n)
nzz.ch/international/…
Die WHO hat nie gesagt, dass Lockdowns mehr schaden als nützen. Ein WHO-Mitarbeiter deutete lediglich die Möglichkeit an und auch das nur bezogen auf junge Menschen. Ein anderer WHO-Mitarbeiter wurde aus dem Kontext gerissen. (2/n)
euro.who.int/en/media-centr…
politifact.com/factchecks/202…
Ob eine Infektion mit einer mutierten Variante gefährlicher oder tödlicher verläuft, ist in der Tat noch offen. Da die Mutationen allerdings mehr Infektionen verursachen, werden sie allein durch ihrer höhere Ansteckungsfähigkeit "mehr Krankheit und Tod" verursachen. (3/n)
Read 10 tweets
Andreas Backhaus Profile picture
21 Jan
Weil es die mangelhafte #Ioannidis-Studie zur Effektivität verschiedener Corona-Maßnahmen jetzt sogar in die #Bundespressekonferenz geschafft hat, wiederhole ich die Kritik dieser Studie nochmal auf Deutsch. In Kürze: Die Studie ist nicht glaubwürdig. 1/n
Im Grunde regressiert die Studie Corona-Fälle in verschiedenen Staaten im Frühjahr auf Variablen, die die verschiedenen Corona-Maßnahmen zu verschiedenen Zeitpunkten widerspiegeln. Sie behauptet, restriktivere Maßnahmen hätten keinen stärkeren Effekt als weniger restriktive. 2/n
Die Vergleichsgruppe zu den restriktiveren Ländern, die die Studie nutzt, sind zwei Staaten (Südkorea und Schweden), die nach Auffassung der Studie kaum oder gar keine restriktive Maßnahmen gegen Corona erlassen hätten. 3/n
Read 12 tweets
Andreas Backhaus Profile picture
13 Jan
There's a new paper by John Ioannidis and co-authors that's intended to push their anti-lockdown message by performing a flimsy empirical analysis. Adding to @GidMK's thread, I will just highlight one flaw that should have prevented this paper from being published but hasn't. Image
What they basically do is regressing case growth in Spring (terrible data) on a bunch of NPIs. Then they're puzzled bc their results indicate a positive "effect" of some NPIs on case growth. Well, that's not puzzling at all, that's because NPIs and case growth are endogenous! ImageImage
NPIs tend to get tougher the worse the case growth gets. But case growth might already be taking off when you've just tightened your NPIs, making cases further grow exponentially before the NPIs do anything. This results in a positive correlation between NPIs and case growth.
Read 7 tweets
Andreas Backhaus Profile picture
21 Dec 20
The idea that weak or absence of evidence for asymptomatic spread is making a case against lockdowns and other preventive measures is self-defeating in so many ways. So I'll just list a few:
If asymptomatic spread wasn't a thing, it would imply that all the cases must be the result of symptomatic spreaders. This would imply we would have to quarantine everyone with cold symptoms ultra-hard, not less, because apparently their distancing and mask-wearing isn't enough.
Further, the study that found only few 100 asymptomatic cases and no symptomatic cases among 10M people was done in Wuhan - the place that had locked down ultra-ultra-hard. Did the lockdown achieved the almost total suppression of the virus? Looks like it. nature.com/articles/s4146…
Read 8 tweets
Andreas Backhaus Profile picture
1 Dec 20
Many papers are now investigating whether YouTube is creating "echo chambers", mostly regarding the (far) right. In principle, an interesting topic. However, if one of the labels for "far right" is "IDW", it's starting from false premises. arxiv.org/pdf/2011.12843… @EricRWeinstein ImageImage
Consequently, the paper lumps people like @SamHarrisOrg @BretWeinstein @joerogan @GadSaad @reason @ScottAdamsSays @benshapiro together with white nationalists and neonazis under the label "far right". Note that "Real Coffee with Scott Adams" is only labeled as "right" though. ☕️ ImageImage
How did this happen? The paper provides sources for the labels. So it's just repeating what others have already done, without checking whether it makes sense. Playing it safe, one may say. ImageImageImage
Read 4 tweets
Andreas Backhaus Profile picture
8 Nov 20
Feeling quite compassionate for the people who apparently have been going through hell, psychologically, during the past 4 years. They've been dragged from one mass delusion to another, with their emotional states being played like a fiddle by the media. Scary stuff.
By the beginning of Trump's term, they believed Trump won in 2016 due to Russia collusion, by the end, they believed the U.S. was on the brink of becoming a fascist dictatorship. Both beliefs, and many more in-between, have been refuted by the facts.
In retrospect, why don't they realize that? I suppose because they're getting a big reward now from the current mass delusion that they've prevailed over the forces of evil. If the happy ending to a story is that you've slain Darth Vader, you'll like that ending.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AndreasShrugged has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AndreasShrugged!

Read all threads by @AndreasShrugged