Note: This thread is related to #COVID19.

Follow the World Health Organization's instructions to reduce your risk of infection. Avoid the three Cs: Crowded places, Close Contact Settings & Confined spaces. Airborne aerosols play an important role in transmitting COVID-19.

- Avoid crowded places and limit time in enclosed spaces

- Apply social distance

- Air rooms by opening windows & doors

- Keep hands and surfaces clean, cover coughs & sneezes

- Wear a mask when you are not at home or when physical distancing is not possible

John Burn-Murdoch
+ Your AuthorsArchive @jburnmurdoch Stories, stats & scatterplots for @FinancialTimes | Daily updates of the coronavirus trajectory tracker | [email protected] | #dataviz May. 15, 2020 1 min read

Thread:

Critical assessment of scientific papers by the media has never been more important than during the pandemic

That new Manchester study saying 25% of UK has HD Covid *was* peer reviewed, but has already been comprehensively debunked by many leading epidemiologists.

A site I'm finding increasingly useful is the Science Media Centre (@SMC_London), where domain experts present feedback to papers circulating in the media.

Here are @AdamJKucharski and others pointing out the flaws in that Manchester paper  https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-reporting-the-suggestion-that-25-of-people-in-the-uk-are-likely-to-have-already-been-infected-by-the-covid-19-virus/ 

And here's a detailed, point-by-point take-down of the same paper by @CT_Bergstrom, including an explanation that even peer review isn't enough to ensure a study's findings are watertight:

Few weeks ago media reported studies saying air pollution levels had big impact on Covid death rates.

Problem 1: studies hadn't been peer reviewed.

Problem 2: air pollution & pop dens are correlated.

Over at SMC, experts pointed out flaws:  https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-preprint-on-air-pollution-in-england-and-covid-19-severity/ 

It's absolutely vital that as journalists we do all the necessary checks before reporting on highly sensitive issues like this.

Yesterday's Manchester paper is a particularly acute case, as the claims in that study concern a critical issue that people will use to justify policy — how many people in the UK may have already had Covid.

My tip for anyone, fellow journalist or otherwise: weigh any surprising new claims against the balance of evidence already out there on the issue in question.

We already know from comprehensive research in other countries that the share of people who've had Covid in even hard hit countries, is around 5%.

Claims that differ significantly from that require extraordinary evidence

My other tip: follow lots of experts.

For me, that means @CT_Bergstrom, @AdamJKucharski, @nataliexdean, @EricTopol, @cmyeaton, @globalhlthtwit, @ActuaryByDay and others.

They don’t always agree! And that’s *good*. This stuff is complicated.

Right on cue, this drops into my inbox

🤔🤔🤔🤔

• Antibody testing suggests ~15% of NYers (~20% in NYC) have had Covid  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html 

vs

• "I did some back of the envelope extrapolations and found that 83% of NYers have had Covid. Here are my charts from Google Sheets."

I know which one I’m going with...


You can follow @jburnmurdoch.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.

Since you’re here...

... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.


Follow Threader