I think it's good policy to lay down predictions, and takes guts. I could be wrong but while a 4th wave appears to be starting in the US, I think it will be short-lived, & quite modest compared to December, particularly in terms of deaths.
Cases might go up a bit more, but it will turn into, at worst, a "case-demic". The US is likely to have over 150million people at least partially vaccinated by the end of April. And the vaccines appear to work on the variants. Plus better weather provides a modest headwind.
Something more needs to be done for vaccine hesitancy, but I'm hopeful. Recall it was predicted that the variants would cause a spike in cases months ago already, and it didn't happen. US vaxxes r actually not that far behind even Israel, and Covid is in rapid decline there.
And, the most likely way I could be wrong here is if (1) an altogether new variant emerges that can really evade the vaccine, or (2) a current variant in fact evades the mRNA vaccines (current data says not). Chile is worrisome but they are mostly using the Chinese vaccines.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, the Pfizer news from yesterday sounded really great. But, I was confused why they reported effectiveness vs. the South African variant but not for the Brazil variants. wsj.com/articles/pfize…
Recall, the South American sample in the Pfizer study was much larger than the South African sample. How is it their data says nothing about the Brazilian variants, w/ 10 times the sample size in South America (counting Argentina)?
Thus, I'm really looking forward to the full data release. That said, this data looks amazing. At a glance it suggests the mRNA vaccines work against all variants (will want to see all the data). And still works fine after six months.
I see the authors have written a partial response. However, I'm not persuaded. We've already written a thorough response-to-the-response here: dropbox.com/s/8yn8woym7qw5…
Here's a quick recap of why I'm not persuaded. Originally, I was unhappy that the authors did not plot any relevant data. A simple plot of pre-treatment trends suggested no impact at all of Chinese competition (Quota group, rising after 2002) on patents per firm.
I just wasted my morning watching the stimulus debate between @LHSummers and @paulkrugman. It's crazy Summers was ever influential. 1/
First, Summers concedes the 2009 stimulus was too small. He then tries to whitewash his own complicity by blaming Congress for shrinking the package slightly. But, it was he himself who advised to kneecap the package before sending it to Congress. 2/
Secondly, Summers himself is a fan of the theory that democrats should not throw stones and criticize a Dem. administration. I don't hold this theory, obviously, but this is what Larry is doing with the goal of slightly shrinking this stimulus. It's an odd hill to die on. 3/
A few things he doesn't mention is that the Stage 3 trials only took around two months to reach statistical significance and could have been approved in early Oct. instead of mid-December, particularly minus the 5-6 week data review by the FDA.
Second, one could have done the same trials, but layered them a bit so that we get through them all a lot faster. I.e., start Stage 2 before stage 1 approval is complete, and take a large control group from Stage 1 and make it into part of the Stage 3 group, etc., so we get
Re: Pfizer vaccine. It's clear something big happens around day 11. Nothing of import happens around day 32. #firstdosesfirst
Pfizer does a ridiculous time split when they look at one shot vs. two. First, there's no statistically significant difference in the first 7 days after the 2nd shot. Had they used an 11 day cut-off instead, one shot would clearly have won.
And, one shot would also likely have won had they looked within a 7 day window in either direction of shot #2.
Good news! I just got my first "Top 5" journal publication, in the Review of Economic Studies. Top 5 journals in econ are fetishized beyond belief. This publication helps show why we might want a more balanced attitude. #Econtwitterideas.repec.org/p/abo/neswpt/w…
In our paper, we find several coding errors which overturn a seminal paper in the "Chinese competition caused a huge increase in innovation" lit by Bloom et al (BDvR). From the beginning, I knew the BDvR paper had problems. Why? nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/…
Well, first I should say that I am actually somewhat empathetic about the coding errors, common in published papers--a reason we need replication. Any empirical researcher will make mistakes on occasion. But, there is a lot to chew on in this case besides the coding errors.