Do yhou consider economists to be scientists on the same level as doctors and medical researchers? Also: The first thing we noticed when we examined the actual study, not the media reports covering the study, was that this was a “working paper” by a group of economists, not epidemiologists. A working paper typically refers to a pre-publication study that has not yet undergone a scientific peer-review process. The authors state as much in a brief description at the top of the study: So this is NOT a Johns Hopkins study but a meta analysis in a working paper put out by economists... You cannot just cite something and if we point out flaws claim we simply dont like the result so we ignore it. All non peer reviewed working papers not conducted by people wihtin the field of study should be ignored no matter what the results say until fully vetted and verified.. Also meta studies often start with conclusion first and then go and find studies to back up t heir claim. classic econometric flaw in meta studies. th report could have said vaccines are great or COVID is deadly or whatever and it would still be bullshit because of....well it is a meta study by economists of medical data...not economics. I think you know that though
That's right.......easy to say such and such thing didn't work and gloat about it. Ask them to come up with a solution , then it's deflection and excuses all the way.
The media is a classic case of meta analysis bias. CNN and FOX look for studies that support what they want to say and splash it over their headlines. Anyone with a background in econometrics or data analysis, and I do have some background, can easily dive in and see all the exclaimers, flaws and qualifiers in the studies that the media ignores and the common person accepts. Look at FOX news taalking about 10 unhealthiest cities in the U.S. being democrat and we all saw the study actually was HEALTHIEST CITIES. Did FOX issue a retraction and then run a story that Democrats run the 10 healthiest cities in the U.S.? Of course not.... does not fit their narrative so that study is ignored. Meta study bias
Same level? No. But doctors have one point - to stop deaths and illness, without regard to anything else. Economists look at it from another angle and consider other variables. Neither one should be discounted and decisions made should encompass all variables. The fact that Johns Hopkins released this after being lauded as such a great source during the pandemic is rather telling. Right, you said that. Economists. And as I said, I'm glad another conversational point is being included at JH - finally. Sure I can. GWB does it all the time, and that's who I was having the "conversation with". But true to form, you've shown up to now butt in. So you and I can now discuss. But having these discussions with GWB is useless. He's just an NPC and has been disingenuous from the get go. So why should I waste the time trying to make a point with someone who will never accept any point no matter how well received it is? Again, you said this. Economics is just another variable to consider and one that is finally getting accepted in the discussion. This is a positive development.
Speaking of healthy and unhealthy locations in the U.S. -- Lay a map of the states with the highest poverty rates in the US over a map of states with the lowest life expectancies, and you get a perfect match, with Mississippi "winning" in both categories Mississippi had lowest life expectancy in U.S. in 2019, while Hawaii's was highest A report from the National Center for Health Statistics ranked all 50 states and Washington, D.C., in order of residents’ life expectancies before the pandemic. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...9-mississippi-lowest-hawaii-highest-rcna15562
Please don't equate FOX and CNN. Night and day. CNN just doesn't give much air time to bogus "studies."
I am not arguing the conclusion of good or bad on lockdowns. I am saying this is a media biased presentation of a study that is full of significant flaws. Johns Hopkins did not endorse this study, that is disingenuous.
Sorry your higness.. but you were not having a conversation with GWB... you posted a new thread starter with this topic addressed to everyone.. so I did not BUTT IN and did not realize I needed your permission to post on your thread you started.