RT @JoseNotAJay: The John Hopkins paper he's citing is written by three economists and hasn't been peer-reviewed. It takes five seconds to…
RT @JoseNotAJay: The John Hopkins paper he's citing is written by three economists and hasn't been peer-reviewed. It takes five seconds to…
RT @JoseNotAJay: The John Hopkins paper he's citing is written by three economists and hasn't been peer-reviewed. It takes five seconds to…
RT @JoseNotAJay: The John Hopkins paper he's citing is written by three economists and hasn't been peer-reviewed. It takes five seconds to…
RT @JoseNotAJay: The John Hopkins paper he's citing is written by three economists and hasn't been peer-reviewed. It takes five seconds to…
RT @JoseNotAJay: The John Hopkins paper he's citing is written by three economists and hasn't been peer-reviewed. It takes five seconds to…
@RealLucjusz @karolink81 @PiotrWitczak_ @AgnieszkaSzust3 I trochę o blokadach: https://t.co/52wSlJulYk
The John Hopkins paper he's citing is written by three economists and hasn't been peer-reviewed. It takes five seconds to find peer-reviewed studies such as this paper in Nature that show the exact opposite result of lockdowns saving many lives. https://t.
RT @Karl_Lauterbach: (2) Der Lockdown hat die Übertragung des Virus 82% gesenkt. Damit wurden alleine in Deutschland nach Berechnungen des…
@tomdabassman Übrigens: Lockdowns haben 500.000 gerettet! https://t.co/yIDr2LxqUN
@covid_con @GSawision @diannejgb @Mike_Auber @TerryPolevoy @USZack12 @DougCulver2 @baconandsteak @shtoopidanimal @sorryantivaxxer @roccogalatilaw Lots of studies show lockdowns work. Here is one. https://t.co/kEpkAhKOhh There is lots of criticism of the s
@HelgeMorset @Prebens Her er en annen artikkel som ser på tiltakseffekt i første bølge, forresten: https://t.co/abSx0tSyaP
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
RT @Beria911: То есть все заявления о том, что университет Джона Хопкинса что-то там доказал, являются ложью. А вот исследование доказыва…
RT @krieghofer: Die bei AfD-Leuten etc. beliebte sogenannte John-Hopkins-Studie zu Lockdowns (0,2%!!) kommt von einer fachfremden Abteilung…
RT @krieghofer: Die bei AfD-Leuten etc. beliebte sogenannte John-Hopkins-Studie zu Lockdowns (0,2%!!) kommt von einer fachfremden Abteilung…
Die bei AfD-Leuten etc. beliebte sogenannte John-Hopkins-Studie zu Lockdowns (0,2%!!) kommt von einer fachfremden Abteilung der John Hopkins Universität & ist nichts wert. Leute von Fach belegten, dass die Lockdowns Millionen von Covid-Toten verhinder
@abunyasha Нурглит Светов кормит подписоту ковид-говном https://t.co/NrW8cyhpo7
RT @Beria911: То есть все заявления о том, что университет Джона Хопкинса что-то там доказал, являются ложью. А вот исследование доказыва…
RT @Beria911: То есть все заявления о том, что университет Джона Хопкинса что-то там доказал, являются ложью. А вот исследование доказыва…
@konradgudjons @hbardarson @hlynur Svona á að rannsaka þetta. Flaxman og co byggðu stigskipt líkön í samstarfi við helstu Bayesísku sérfræðinga heims: https://t.co/4pvIqolwHK Myndin að neðan er tilvitnun í Seth Flaxman úr þessari slóð: https://t.co/dnQ1Ra
@Vanillasky8788 @JulienPain @MathildeGracia 1- Non, Ioannidis a écrit que des NPI plus restrictifs (more restrictive) ne réduisaient pas plus les risques. Il ne dit pas que les NPI sont inefficaces. 2- https://t.co/rHvim3waza
RT @Beria911: То есть все заявления о том, что университет Джона Хопкинса что-то там доказал, являются ложью. А вот исследование доказыва…
RT @MichaelSteidel: @WhoIsSabala @BabeTruth2 @miltimore79 Flawed because they explicitly excluded data that didn’t support their predetermi…
@WhoIsSabala @BabeTruth2 @miltimore79 Flawed because they explicitly excluded data that didn’t support their predetermined conclusion. Also:
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
@JuliusChapiro @thehowie @HopkinsMedicine @JohnsHopkinsSPH @GovNedLamont @MarkDSiegel1 @hmkyale @Yale @CDCgov Since I was tagged: A. If you read the paper you would not ask. B. written by 3 economists, non is a public health or meta-analysis expert C. n
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
@whathtedogdoing @DijkGv @WimVenijn @thierrybaudet De meest respectabele bladen... jij speelt niet alleen dom, je bent het ook... https://t.co/ztvsnap9ds
@dinorawruss @UncvrngTheTruth read this study
@dinorawruss @BitcoinJedi101 check it out
@dinorawruss @mista98berk @mKranzkowski @Tim_Roehn check this study
@dinorawruss @grafandreas @mista98berk @mKranzkowski @Tim_Roehn check it out
@dinorawruss @grafandreas @mista98berk @mKranzkowski @Tim_Roehn I think this is more intrestimg for you.
@jimbodean1984 @RealDeniseWelch I can find one that shows that they worked. https://t.co/SUQqMKFI8K
@Sonny41773672 @christoph_rothe https://t.co/BZapQk40CL https://t.co/norQmeVeCH https://t.co/aJvumxEnua https://t.co/QWwsCee7ud Meld dich einfach wieder, wenn du die gelesen und verstanden hast.👍🏽
@FoxNews Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home … decreases disease transmission. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed. https://t.co/UXJQmPHQWp
@FoxNews “Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home … decreases disease transmission. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed,”https://t.co/UXJQmPHQWp
@DrKatrin_Rabiei @AndrewEwing11 @pwolodarski @GostaBroholmer @CameliaDewan @janlotvall @CarlMattis1 Here is the Nature article https://t.co/tEGrISdWcO
@Mr_Monwood @Koelekikker @thierrybaudet @YouTube Dit zijn uitvoerige onderzoeken naar of lockdowns werken. Jij weet kennelijk niet eens wat het doel van een lockdown is 🤣 https://t.co/ztvsnap9ds
@Mr_Monwood @Koelekikker @thierrybaudet @YouTube Kijk.. echte onderzoeken of lockdowns werken of niet uit Nature en the lancet. Respectabele bladen.. https://t.co/ztvsnap9ds
@EveKeneinan Pretty sure that's confirmation bias I can smell - peer review of this preprint is just starting: the epidemiologists aren't impressed https://t.co/biPsJ95eme On the other hand... https://t.co/RA8jGq838v
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
@ofsevit @Adam_Creighton Of course there's exponential growth. But more importantly, the growth slows, stops and recedes many times, despite the refusal to implement mask mandates or lockdowns. Cases will fall on their own. As to no expert assuming it wou
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
@MThallinger @GunnarStavrum Og de har glatt hoppet over hele artikkelen til Imperial, publisert i Nature, som estimerte at bare Norge sparte 12.000 dødsfall på tiltakene bare mellom mars og mai 2020. Det er vanskelig å finne ord for dette. Ærbart er det i
RT @LiverpoolRed18: Really? Because this study predicted between 2.8-3.5 million lives were saved by lockdowns up until May 2020 across o…
Really? Because this study predicted between 2.8-3.5 million lives were saved by lockdowns up until May 2020 across only 11 European countries. https://t.co/e8ovGUhtf8
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found…
Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found "lockdowns" (variously defined) have had > impact (egs): https://t.co/DSMpS7aREx https://t.co/xofgXV0RF3 https://t.co/NhoMIOVB3y
@Picollus @EmergencyBlog Et le plus drole de l'article du national post dit que l'analyse ignore cette étude des pires navets de l'histoire, Neil Ferguson et co qui dit que le confinement a sauvé des millions de vie https://t.co/wXwZAlm6Tn
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
@Uhandrea Este artículo decía que se salvaron muchas vidas gracias al confinamiento: https://t.co/6TcI7KEKwO
@DanieIL_RRA @alejo7886 @QuotesforGoal Sabes qué es una estimación? acá te dejo algo de la revista NATURE. Seguro que son "politicos" quienes hicieron este estudio. 😏 https://t.co/im5QL4NkbV
@uniliberto @leandrotessler @Clauwild1 @josegallucci @seleno_glauber Não funcionou segundo essa meta-analise, segundo esse estudo funcionou: https://t.co/bqAP4akON6
@QuotesforGoal Se estima que las cuarentenas evitó la muerte de 3,1 millones de personas en Europa. TE DEJO ESTE ESTUDIO DE NATURE y no de esas paginas magufas que les gusta tanto a ustedes los liberchairos ignorantes. https://t.co/im5QL4MMmn
@synxchaosu Dodam, że ten artykuł był napisany przez ekspertów od zdrowia publicznego, epidemiologii i opublikowany w Nature (najbardziej prestiżowym czasopiśmie naukowym), nie w ,,Studies in Applied Economics" 🙃 https://t.co/nrBRGqrHPt
@FoyPt @gavreilly @cooper_m @PatKennyNT @NTBreakfast @kierancuddihy @FergalBowers @rte @TodayFM @NewstalkFM @ClaireByrneLive @VirginMediaNews I am not a fan of lockdowns but this is total rubbish. It is not a meta analysis when you exclude peer reviewed p
@GelauMarkus @Mallta2 Lesen Sie bitte diese Studien, die die These von den Wirtschaftswissenschaftern der obigen Studie zerlegen.
@ThomasMagini @BILD Es gibt viele Studien: https://t.co/BIFPRpD3ap
@mista98berk @mKranzkowski @Tim_Roehn Lockdown saved a lot of lives, so if you do not understand what an airborne virus means. https://t.co/shbxDUnaqp
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
@hughjassdevice I am glad https://t.co/0J4tjK8IVJ that you think https://t.co/CfCBzEFEj0 you know better https://t.co/gzimIDkduX than published science. Good little boy!
@IdiazAyuso El confinamiento salvó sólo en España unas 450.000 vidas, en toda Europa los diferentes confinamientos alrededor de 3M. ¿Pero Barajas no era un coladero? Ah la libertad, la de dejar morir a los ancianos cuya gestión tenías tú, Isabel. https://
@ifigeniacriolla @Luzmadrid2002 @EconoCabreado @IdiazAyuso Aquí otro de Nature a nivel europeo...🤡 https://t.co/kzIdVDuiyt
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
RT @theotherphilipp: 🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für…
🧐 Wenn Lockdowns gar nichts gebracht haben, wie kam dann Super-Modellierer Ferguson & Flaxman zu ihrem Peer-Review für Nature? Heißt das, die Reviews der Fachzeitschriften sind für die Tonne? 😱 War es nur ein #BeerReview? 🍻 Fragen über Fragen. http
@JoergSpieler @UniHannover Hier 10 anderslautende Studien: https://t.co/nOGWOQhihd
@KlausKblog Et af de første større undersøgelser kiggede på pandemiens udvikling i 11 europæiske lande i foråret 2020, inkl. Danmark. Undersøgelsen er udgivet i det velansete tidsskrift Nature og kan læses her: https://t.co/77mHD62k6J
@JonasHerby @ASAllarp Mon disse er inkluderet? https://t.co/dRo2LLWPFp
@MNHR_Labo 効果を検証したわけではありません。地域での感染者数に対するインパクトを検証したCluster RCTでは効果が示唆されてますね、https://t.co/qwInoH4bTn それで経済規制で人流を抑制するような効果を示さなかった研究が多数あるということですが、どちらですか? https://t.co/Rvb67vRTUW
@shinyshinya2222 @MNHR_Labo 実際に対策が行われた期間の違いは理解されてます? また人口構成とかでも条件が変わりますので、あのような単純な比較に意味は薄いです。 対策に効果があると言う論文が多いですので、こちらも読まれてはどうでしょうか?
RT @styh131582: 「効果がある」というエビデンスの例としてEMBOpressの一論文を否定して、効果がないの根拠として多くの問題点が指摘されてEditorから注意喚起まででているScientific reportの論文を持ってきても説得力がありませんよ。 htt…
@aether_wild @thehill Here is one bad argument made by the author. He claimed NPI’s caused more deaths than saved. Many studies refute that bad claim. Again, why are we talking about an author who thinks vaccines cause autism? https://t.co/emeOA4ITR3 https
@GradusScholtens @FrankBrecht Daarom kun jij ook die onderzoeken laten zien natuurlijk.. Nature zal er wel naast zitten zeker https://t.co/ztvsnap9ds