Some have claimed that a "Johns Hopkins Study" showed that "lockdowns" have been ineffective against #COVID19 and there's been a "full-on media blackout" of this study.
Here I cover for @Forbes this & the problems with such claims #epitwitter#scicomm forbes.com/sites/brucelee…
2/THREAD As I detailed in my article, it's not even appropriate to call this working paper a "Johns Hopkins study" as @BadFoxGraphics pointed out. Only one of the 3 authors is affiliated w/ John Hopkins & the university didn't seem to commission or endorse this working paper.
3/THREAD Moreover, this so-called "Johns Hopkins study" was not a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable scientific journal. It's a working paper. BIG DIFFERENCE Anyone can upload a working paper to a website, as long as they have access to the Internet & opposable thumbs.
4/THREAD By the way, only one of the 3 authors of this so-called "Johns Hopkins study" is affiliated w/ @JohnsHopkins in any way. All 3 are economists. It's not clear how much experience w/ epidemiology, medicine or public health any of them had before the #COVID19#pandemic
5/THREAD Therefore, rather than touting the institution Johns Hopkins, instead look specifically at who the authors of this working paper are, what their backgrounds are, what specifically they're saying & what actual evidence they provide to support their claims
6/THREAD So what about the specifics of this so-called "Johns Hopkins study?" Well, as I wrote in the article for @Forbes --> @GidMK detailed the various flaws in this working paper in a tweet thread & @AndreasShrugged tweeted the following:
7/THREAD Of the 34 “studies” included in the working paper's review, 12 were actually working papers & 14 were from economists with only one being from an epidemiologist. Something is NOT a true meta-analysis when you've skipped most of the major relevant peer-reviewed studies
8/THREAD Regarding the claim that there has been a "full-on media blackout" of this so-called "Johns Hopkins study," as I described in the article there's no evidence that this has been the case. Plus, how exactly would such a "blackout" actually occur?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/THREAD -- Consistently maintaining mask use until >70% of the population is vaccinated vs #COVID19 & then ~ 2-10 weeks afterwards could prevent many, many #coronavirus cases, hospitalizations & deaths + save businesses, the health care system, insurance, taxpayers, etc. money.
3/THREAD-- This goes against the false narrative that face mask use somehow hurts the economy. In fact, it's quite the opposite ---> investing in providing face masks & encouraging their use can end up helping the economy by preventing direct medical costs & productivity losses
President Trump suggested that doctors are inflating #COVID19#coronavirus death counts in order to make money. Seriously? As I describe here for @Forbes there are many reasons why such assertions make absolutely no sense. #MedTwitter 1/THREAD
Secondly, there is no real evidence that #COVID19#coronavirus deaths are being deliberately inflated. If anything, as I described here for @Forbes there may be undercounting
1/5 Beware of “back-of-the-envelope” ✉️ calculations that try to predict how many ppl will get sick or die from #COVID19#coronavirusoutbreak , especially when they’re done by ppl who have little experience in #infectiousdisease modeling. The current situation is not that simple
2/5 Many different factors may affect the spread of the #SARSCOV2#coronavirus . These include different assumptions about the virus characteristics (which are still emerging), how much the virus has already spread (which is unknown since widespread testing is not occurring yet),
3/5 ...how much ppl are mixing, washing their hands, & practicing other infection control measures, and what the government & other organizations are currently doing & will do in response. These all can significantly affect the spread of the #COVID19#coronavirus