His charts seem to claim that nothing works. Locking down doesn't work, masking doesn't work, vaccination doesn't work, your printer doesn't wo—wait scratch that one
1/n
One iota of critical thinking is all you need to expose numerous errors in his charts:
Error #1 — Case ascertainment rate bias:
A country may detect 1 in 2 cases, while another 1 in 4. We say the case ascertainment rate is respectively 50%, and 25%.
This variance in case ascertainment rate alone is enough to put half of @ianmSC's charts where they belong: in the trash🗑️
Real Science™ looks at covid deaths—not cases—to compare the severity of the pandemic across different regions. This avoids case ascertainment rate bias.
Error #2 — Fails to consider the counterfactual:
Without lockdowns, without masks, without NPIs, we have quite solid evidence by now that the situation would be even worse. See published Real Science™:
If infections continue to accelerate after a measure (eg. masking) is enacted, it doesn't imply that the measure is ineffective
Often, authorities enact a measure when they see a growing threat (eg. arrival of a more infectious variant).
The counterfactual in this case, a more infectious variant arriving WITHOUT a measure in place, would mean infections accelerating even more than they are growing WITH the measure.
Error #3 — Apples🍎 to Oranges🍊
That's something @ianmSC loves to do. He compares country X to country Y, slaps labels on a chart ("X had mask mandates", "Y didn't"). Somehow he thinks the observed differences in pandemic severity is due to only that one thing (masks)
@ianmSC But in reality a multitude of other factors matter just as much:
- population health
- density
- household size
- ingress of visitors (who seed infections)
- even income disparity, education... are big factors that correlate to covid deaths per capita
@ianmSC believes that adding the infection rate per capita across different vaccinated populations (1 dose, and 2 doses) gives the infection rate in the overall vaccinated population
@ianmSC Now, someone having such a severe misunderstanding of basic rate calculations explains why @ianmSC never takes the discussion one level beyond just presenting a simplistic chart... I don't think he feels comfortable doing it
On an occasion where @ianmSC seemed cognizant of the case ascertainment rate (the 11x factor below), he thought it was a constant that didn't change through time
I compiled a list—as exhaustive as possible—of all peer-reviewed & published research articles that evaluate the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions, specifically lockdowns on COVID-19
➡️Papers finding NPIs effective outnumber, by 8 to 1, those finding the opposite
Criteria for inclusion in the list:
1-Be a RESEARCH ARTICLE (data, methods, results). Commentaries, opinion pieces, etc, do not qualify
2-Be PEER-REVIEWED & PUBLISHED among the 26,000 titles in Scopus
3-Be EXPLICIT. No secondhand interpretation of the data
Regarding criterion #3: the authors must explicitly state in the text whether their results suggest NPIs are effective or not
Their exact words have been peer-reviewed & published. Your interpretation of figures or data tables has not.
2. President of Burundi died on 8 June 2020. The cause of death was given officially as "cardiac arrest" by the Burundian government, but is suspected to be COVID: economist.com/middle-east-an…
His wife was flown to Kenya and hospitalized for COVID a week before his death.
I found a 521-km sightline from Pik Koroleva. This makes it the 2nd longest sightline on the planet:
Start point 41.080000,77.769167 (Pik Koroleva, elevation 5800 m)
Bearing 188.914568°
End point 36.449604,76.867903 (elevation 6416 m)
1/n
This 521-km sightline was found using a custom multithreaded program that is currently crunching through 2.4 million viewpoints. It will complete the full analysis in about 90 days
Peter highlights "For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk"
CAE = cardiac adverse event
First, the claim is very specific:
- not all kids, just boys
- not all boys, just 16-17
- not 16-17 boys, just those with zero medical comorbidities
So, from the get go, this implies all other kids could probably still be vaccinated and this being less risky than COVID-19 itself
Notice the new curve "Brazeau" which is 1 of the most comprehensive & recent analysis suggesting covid is more fatal than the flu even at ages as young as 5 years old
All the official sources behind this chart are referenced in the README file: github.com/mbevand/covid1…
The US CDC did update their estimate of the covid IFR on 19 March 2021 (they increased it quite significantly). I missed that update.