![]() ![]() Not only that, others have pointed out various flaws in the working paper’s actual analyses. ![]() Without providing clear evidence that you have done so, instead of “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality,” would a better title of this working paper have been “Stuff that We Selected to Support Our Point of View?” To qualify as a meta-analysis, a study needs to fulfill established criteria, which includes demonstrating that you’ve included all of the studies that have been published. This is odd since most of the key NPI research studies have been conducted by epidemiologists, medical researchers, and other public health experts. In fact, 14 of the “studies” were actually from economists with only one being from epidemiologists. Of the 34 “studies” included in the review, 12 of them were actually working papers. Yet, this working paper did not include or even acknowledge many such studies that have shown the benefits of NPI’s such as face mask wearing and social distancing without explaining why the three authors excluded such studies. That should mean that they should have considered and included all published peer-reviewed studies relevant to the topic at hand. The authors claimed that they performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. OK, changing definitions aside, did this working paper really provide enough evidence to support its bold claims? In a word, no. ![]() This doesn’t quite jibe with the definition which describes a “lockdown” as “a security measure taken during an emergency to prevent people from leaving or entering a building or other location.” So unless you are wearing a ridiculously enormous face mask or one with BDSM chains attached to your friend, wearing a face mask shouldn’t prevent you from leaving or entering most buildings. But other than that, face mask requirements really don’t restrict your ability to move away from your home. Yet, how many times have you heard when wearing a mask, “how’s that lockdown of your face going?” Sure, a face mask may prevent your nose from wandering away from your face and partaking in a rave, before returning to your face in the morning. By Herby, Jonung, and Hanke’s definition, even face mask requirements would be considered a “lockdown,” right? After all, face masks are a NPI since you don’t eat or inject face masks into you. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.” By the way, what did the authors consider lockdowns? Well, according to the working paper, “lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).” For example, it concluded that “lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. This working paper did make some bold claims. (Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg) © 2013 Bloomberg Finance LP Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, was one of the three. So while it is clear that meerkats alone did not write and post this working paper, take anything that it said with 17 Ugg boots full of salt. Basically, anyone who has access to the Internet, a laptop/smartphone, and opposable thumbs, can post a “working paper” on a website. A working paper is not the same as a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable scientific journal just like how a YouTube video of you getting pelted with sausages would not be the same as a full-length Hollywood movie. Simply calling it a “Johns Hopkins study” glosses over this important distinction. Oh, and note that Herby, Jonung, and Hanke themselves used the term “working paper” to describe what they had put together. After all, if you were to end up in the emergency room with an injury, “don’t worry an economist will be around shortly to re-attach your arm” may not be the most comforting thing to hear. Isn’t that a bit like three proctologists telling you how the economy is doing? It’s not clear how much economists alone would understand the complexities and subtleties of medicine and public health. Moreover, Maher didn’t clarify that the three authors were economists rather than medical, epidemiology, or public health experts. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |