Read on Twitter
How low is the bar for publishing a study showing stay-at-home orders work? Lower than you think.
JAMA edition: fit an absurd exponential model to virus growth, credit the stay-at-home order for the bad out-of-sample fit.
Conclusion: stay-at-home orders saved
lives!
JAMA edition: fit an absurd exponential model to virus growth, credit the stay-at-home order for the bad out-of-sample fit.
Conclusion: stay-at-home orders saved
lives!
According to this model, without the stay-at-home order, CO would have had 422,000 hospitalizations (10% of CO population) by the end of April. Nobody thinks that is plausible.
Placebo test #1— the graph should look different for a state that didn't have a stay-at-home order, right? I fitted the same curve to the same dates in Arkansas (no stay-at-home order).
The result is identical to the graphs in the JAMA paper.
The result is identical to the graphs in the JAMA paper.
Placebo test #2: If a study this silly found that stay-at-home orders had *no* effect, do you think JAMA would have published it?
This a bad look for science.
It's hard to wrap your head around, but it's likely that (i) social distancing works, and (ii) it is nearly hopeless to measure its effect in a diff-in-diff setting where everyone in the country started social distancing at the same time.
It's hard to wrap your head around, but it's likely that (i) social distancing works, and (ii) it is nearly hopeless to measure its effect in a diff-in-diff setting where everyone in the country started social distancing at the same time.
Link to the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766673
