LogFAQs > #941729876

randy_123r posted...

I understand why you would think that, but I don't see any sort of bias in the article (although I'm no economist or doctor), so it's hard to see why I would immediately think a bias exists, even if they weren't doctors. Just feels wrong to immediately criticize the paper because the authors don't have the right titles without reading/comprehending it first. It also seems that a doctor isn't even necessary from what I've read, just someone who understands the basics of how the corona virus spreads, and someone who is extremely good with numbers and population statistics.

It's not unreasonable to have start with doubt when looking into papers. Even generally good researchers can put out stinkers once in a while.

From my perspective, it is literally impossible to evaluate whether their synthetic models to predict "non protest" case numbers are valid, so all I can really do is look at their credentials and trust their expertise. Where I feel reasonably comfortable with the authors' background, he doesn't and that's fine imo.

And it's easy to believe an overall explanation that makes intuitive sense (which is a trap I may be taking into). It is likely that there was higher spread within the protests that was offset by people afraid to go outside, resulting in a net zero effect according to their models. And that's the rub.

---

<insert sig here>