LogFAQs > #941729922

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.

I think the reason why he (and others) are more likely to not immediately take the information for granted, is because it's one set of studies done by one group that aren't exactly the foremost experts on infectious disease. And their study isn't peer-reviewed by other groups or individuals either.

Jabodie posted...

It would primarily impact the quality of their synthetic models. A few of these authors specialize in Health Economics, and were likely employed in this study for their familiarity with avoidance behavior and connecting economic/social issues with larger health impacts. So it seems they're familiar with interpreting health data, and are likely employing a basic model for their synthetic car borrowed from health literature.

But this definitely is a fair take. Like you said, always take things with a grain of salt.

---

"Your flesh is a relic; a mere vessel. Hand over your flesh, and a new world awaits you. We demand it." - 01 Machine Ambassador