Abortion statistics are a fascinating example of bias, because there are a great many misconceptions about abortion that are nevertheless common
Try and answer the following questions without looking them up
(I'm using mostly US/EU/Aus stats here, while some of this is generalizable to other places, many of the stats will be very different particularly in low-income regions. Also, even within similar countries these stats can be quite different, so this is very general)
1. What is the most common age-group for people who have induced abortions?
2. What proportion of women who have an abortion have had an abortion in the past?
3. What proportion of those who get abortions already have at least 1 child?
4. Is the abortion rate higher or lower for women with partners than those without?
5. How many children, on average, do people who get abortions want to have in their lives?
6. How much does reported recent partner violence increase someone's chance of getting an abortion?
I think these are all interesting questions, because in general there's this popular image that a lot of people hold on to of a teenager accidentally getting pregnant and needing an abortion
But, statistics don't really agree with that image. For example, the answer to question 1 is 20-29 - most people who get abortions are in their 20s (or 30s in some countries), not their teens
The other questions are similarly revealing:
Q2: only 20-30% have had previous abortions
Q3: >50% have at least one child already
Q4: higher - more likely to have an abortion if in a relationship
Q5: most want 1-2 children overall
Q6: 100%+ increased likelihood
In other words, the most likely person to get an abortion already has at least one child, is in a relationship that has an elevated risk of violence (but is not married), and has never had an abortion before
Even some of the associations we're used to don't necessarily hold up. For example, better education increases the likelihood of having had an abortion in some low-income countries, but usually decreases the likelihood in wealthier places …pregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
Another important reference - there is very little evidence that banning abortion reduces abortion rates, but it does increase unsafe abortions, which are one of the leading causes of maternal mortality globally who.int/reproductivehe…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The most important work that I've done this year - we found that the IFR of COVID-19 is double as high in developing countries compared to high-income places medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
(The graph above is a new figure that will soon be in the updated medrxiv preprint)
As you can see from the figure above, this difference is largest in young people and tapers off in the elderly. By age 80, the IFR is only 1.3x higher in developing countries than high-income areas
One of the more depressing things about all these god-awful ivermectin "analyses" is how much they muddy the water if the drug DOES prove effective to some degree
I mean, it's entirely possible (some would reasonably argue likely) that ivermectin has a benefit for COVID-19! It's extremely unlikely that the benefit is large, but a small benefit is still very much on the cards
We may end up being quite certain that ivermectin reduces the death rate from COVID-19 by, say, 10%. That would be important, and the medication would be a useful part of the toolkit for treatment of the disease
I'm still quite surprised at the complete and utter lack of basic integrity that has some ivermectin proponents arguing that the literature is fine because there is an "expected" rate of fraud and misconduct which has not been exceeded
This bizarre narrative states that the fraud in the ivermectin space isn't an issue because every scientific area has fraud and therefore we're just seeing exactly what we'd anticipate for any treatment
This is just genuinely nonsensical. Most of the fraudulent studies have been the most hugely positive, and there are serious concerns with many of the other papers
In the video, Dr. John Campbell repeats the claim that, since Covid-19 claims dropped after the 13th of August, and as this was the point that ivermectin was "allowed as a treatment", this means that ivermectin had some massive implied benefit
But, as Dr. Campbell notes, there was no policy change in Japan on the 13th of August. There was absolutely no difference in terms of patient care before or after this "intervention"
The anonymous people behind ivm meta dot com have put together a response to this excellent piece. Their main argument is that it doesn't look at all the evidence
So, following Scott Alexander's fine example, let's briefly review the prophylaxis literature 1/n
2/n Here are all 15 prophylaxis studies, in their wonderful glory
I'm going to try and be brief, but we'll see how that goes
3/n First up, Shouman. In this 'randomized' study, the authors ceased allocating people into the control group at some point, no allocation concealment, and massive differences between groups at baseline
The thing about reporting systems such as this is that they rely entirely on self-reports, which are themselves influenced by media attention. This makes comparisons problematic
The HPV vaccine is probably the most talked about product of all time, and even then we were lucky to get a single news story in a global publication once every few months since it was rolled out