Covid19: a «Nature» não demonstra que o Confinamento salvo Vidas
O estudo da Nature sobre o efeito do confinamento na epidemia do Covid19 assenta numa metodologia deficiente e não demonstra, escreve Nich Davis, u metereologista independente baseado em Inglatterra, em artigo publicado num blog científico respeitado. A revista Nature publicou recentemente um estudo de investigadores do Immperial College, de Londres, afirmando que o confinamento salvou vidas na epidemia de Covid19,. O seu principal epidemiologista, Niall Ferguson,, está desacreditado não só pelos estudos que previam uma mortandade se acabasse o confinamento em Inglaterra mas também +rlos seus modelos de epidemias zoófilas, que levaram ao massacre inútil de muitos animais.
Segue-s o resumo do artigo e o link para a sua versão completa
Did lockdowns really save 3 million COVID-19 deaths, as Flaxman et al. claim?
By Nic Lewis
Key points about the recent Nature paper by Flaxman and other Imperial College modellers
1) The transition from rising to declining recorded COVID-19 deaths in the in 11 European countries that they studied imply that transmission of COVID-19 must have reduced substantially.
The study was bound to find that together the five government non-pharmaceu tical interventions (NPI) they considered contributed essentially 100% of the reduction in COVID-19 transmission, since in their model there is nothing else that could cause it.
2) The prior distribution they used for the effects of NPIs on transmission in their subjective Bayesian statistical method hugely favours finding that almost all the reduction in transmission is due to one, or possibly two, NPIs with all the others having a negligible effect.
The probability density of the prior distribution at their median estimates of the effect on transmission of each type of NPI, which allocate essentially all the reduction in transmission to lockdowns, was many billion times greater than it would have been if the same total estimated reduction had been spread evenly across the types of NPI.
3) Which intervention(s) is/are found to be important depends critically on the assumptions regarding the delay from infection to death. When using their probabilistic assumptions regarding the delay from infection to death, a huge (and highly improbable given other assumptions they made) country-specific effect is required to explain the reduction in transmission in Sweden, where no lockdown occurred. If delays from infection to death are increased by just three days, their model no longer finds lockdowns to have the largest effect, and a more moderate country-specific effect is required to explain the reduction in transmission in Sweden.
Para ler mais:
O Economista Português agradece ao Epidemiologista anónimo o envio do link acima.