Graduate students are the backbone of all scientific endeavours, and often do amazing work without which we would all be lost
Perhaps more importantly, it is fundamentally unscientific to argue that someone's publication record makes any difference to the truth of their arguments
Indeed, it appears that Levitt's dislike of this paper is that it mentions him by name, rather than any problem with the academic quality of the work
Presumably, given that the only argument being made here is that the lead authors are not senior academics, Dr. Levitt agrees with the content of the paper in its entirety and has no scientific objection to it whatsoever
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is one of the reasons that I usually stay away from offering explicit policy opinions. As a scientist, I can give you a pretty good estimate of the impact of COVID-19, but it's up to us as a society to decide what to do about that
We can say from an epidemiological viewpoint which path has which benefits and costs, but ultimately the decision of which is more beneficial is not scientific
Some people have consistently argued that freedom is the most important value
This is a valid ethical viewpoint! Epidemiologically, we can perhaps place a cost on that ideation, but whether this cost is justified is not a scientific decision
2/n The study is here, and it's a cluster-randomized controlled trial, where people living in dorms of Singapore were given one of the 4 treatments or a vitamin C control during large COVID-19 outbreaks in the dorms ijidonline.com/article/S1201-…
3/n The results seem to show that people who take HCQ or P-I have fewer infections than those who only have vitamin C, with a really impressive risk reduction
The weirdest thing about the whole herd immunity through natural infection argument is that it's never happened ever for any disease long-term so it was always a wild idea for COVID-19
Like, sure, pandemics died out - eventually most diseases became endemic and killed only a small number of people each year
But that's definitely what's been bandied about as herd immunity
Imagine if instead of "herd immunity" the message had been "recurring outbreaks with a slowly diminishing fatality rate until after months/years the number of yearly deaths would get low enough to not bother any more"
The study itself is interesting - sleep duration and risk of dementia, lots of follow-up, decent sized sample (although relatively few events) nature.com/articles/s4146…
But the headline is super misleading for so many reasons. My faves:
1. absolute risk is really small (~1 case per 1,000 person-years) 2. The authors acknowledge later in the article that they don't know if this is causal or not
2021 will hopefully be the year that the armchair epidemiologists stop being wrong about infectious disease, excess mortality, etc, and move on to being wrong about something else
Maybe economics?
To clarify, because of course I need to (sigh) this is a joke about the twitter randoms who have deemed themselves experts not a critique of interdisciplinary work
I'm currently working on a paper with 3 economists, an immunologist, a demographer, and 2 statisticians on COVID-19. Non-epis have great and valuable insight!