Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Mkwdr t1_jdlgium wrote

V Interesting.

The link with interpersonal trust (because of the effect on vaccination rates?) seems kind of sad.

4

CaptainBathrobe t1_jdohar0 wrote

One overall point is that measures taken generally helped reduce infection and mortality, and that if the states that took fewer measures had done more, fewer people would have been infected and fewer would have died, by as much as 30% in some cases.

4

MorrowPlotting t1_jdmiafp wrote

“COVID-19 magnified the polarisation and persistent social, economic, and racial inequities that already existed across US society, but the next pandemic threat need not do the same. US states that mitigated those structural inequalities, deployed science-based interventions such as vaccination and targeted vaccine mandates, and promoted their adoption across society were able to match the best-performing nations in minimising COVID-19 death rates. These findings could contribute to the design and targeting of clinical and policy interventions to facilitate better health outcomes in future crises.”

2

Troutkid OP t1_jdml9hp wrote

History need not repeat itself. That's why global health research tends to have two branches - metrics and implementation. We have the metrics, so now we have to hope that policymakers can cooperate with the implementation experts.

2

AutoModerator t1_jdlczen wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Fritzkreig t1_jdld87y wrote

Thanks, I saved this to look over tommorow!

1

derphurr t1_jdlfk6e wrote

What kind of extensive study like this ignores population density and urban population centers....

−11

Troutkid OP t1_jdlhe6n wrote

Correct me if I dont address your concern, but I believe you're mistakenly conflating "controlling for" and "ignoring" factors. Controlling for factors allows us to study the direct impact of variables that may be highly correlated with this noise. The authors had a pretty good reason, in the context/goal of the article:

"[W]e controlled for factors that have a known direct and biological connection to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 death rates. These factors are generally outside the realm of policy makers in a crisis (eg, age profile, population density, and presence of comorbidities)."

Controlling for the data variance directly explained by things like population density allows us to learn about the policies and behaviors themselves, rather than allowing potentially correlated variables to muddy up the water. It's an extremely common and robust technique in statistical modeling.

7

derphurr t1_jdn23yr wrote

Policy makers first concern should be population density. If you look at COVID response it was stupid and irresponsible to make rules and edicts that applied equally to rural areas as well as million population urban centers.

−2

Troutkid OP t1_jdnbmy7 wrote

You are still not quite grasping the reason for controlling for pop density. Policy makers ARE concerned about pop density, along with age distributions and comorbidities, some of the other factors controlled for in the study. They were controlled for because it is already known how those affect the impact of a pandemic and the researchers wanted to study decisions that could help everyone. Controlling for factors isn't ignoring them. It is factoring in their respective impact and seeing if the variables of interest are still impactful.

So, now we can see which rules and implementations would be irresponsible to apply across varying pop densities. If they analyzed a policy whose efficacy was highly contingent on pop density, the statistical confidence would drop significantly, and we would conclude that it is not a generally-applicable policy.

We know a policy aspect works across all pop densities because we controlled for it and found it to be statistically significant. It achieved exactly what you want. Does that make sense?

So don't call something stupid and irresponsible if you don't know what is going on. It's a very common method to isolate specific causes of variance in data so that proper analyses can be made. Maybe approaching it in good faith and inquiring about why it concerns you would yield a more productive conversation. Through colleagues I have over at that institution, I've heard about the peer-review responses of this paper. There were minor edits, but reviewing health economists would have pointed out a problem as glaring as "ignoring" a factor as important as population. Not controlling for population and having sweeping generalizations across pop densities would have prevented this paper from being published in the first place, because that would be poor science.

3

derphurr t1_jdnsw3j wrote

No state that I know of had different rural or urban masking or emergency worker restrictions. Every state applied nonsense statewide rules.

−3

Troutkid OP t1_jdnv5rv wrote

It's becoming obvious that you (1) Have not read or do not understand the methods and results in this paper, (2) you refuse to cite specific sections of the article with which you disagree and (3) are not willing to bring any evidence beyond a long string of "nuh uh" responses.

I can't believe I've entertained explaining what controlling for a variable means, which is concerning. If you want to bring up specific quotes/sections or bring in counter facts, then by all means, I'll address them. I am a global health statistician, so I'm happy to help clear up some questions. I invite you to bring something substantive to the table.

If you still have a meaningful problem with the methodology of this article that was published in The Lancet, then I look forward to your publication that overturns the results./s All the data is available online.

5