What I find most shocking is that there is zero discussion of these figures in the paper. They LEAP off the page. I just can't for the life of me come up with anything even approaching a plausible explanation for these splits.

If you find @MicrobiomDigest's spot the duplication challenges a bit tooooo challenging, I'll give you an easy one. See if you can spot the batshit crazy in this table 1, which is supposedly describing a nationally representative sample.

I'm not sure how with that data sampling, you can pick out PPIs as the culprit, regardless of what regression you do. We're going to need far better evidence than this before we throw PPIs under the bus yet again based on an observational study.

But here's where I raise an eyebrow. 69.6% of the COVID-19 patients had a high school education or less (28.7% in control), but 63.5% of the COVID-19 made 200k+ per year (7.4% in the control group). Ultra-wealthy non-college 30-39yos, who mostly smoke. Huh? 3/

74.5% of the COVID-19 patients were 30-39 yo (27.1% in the control group). 69.7% were Latinx (15.3% in control). 73.1% smoke every day (22.5% in control). 2/

While I commend them for this work, a few things jump out at me right away looking at the data tables. The sample of the patients was heavily skewed towards a few demographics. 1/

Curious if the 70% threshold we see in the data are nearly identical repeats. Authors would have to release the data to know for sure. In short, my faith in this study is zero, zip, zilch. f/real

In conclusion, the underlying data of this study appear to be horribly flawed. I'd send this to the editor, but the lead author is EIC of the journal. The journal should seriously consider retraction of this paper, which does not make sense. h/t: @supermarioelia f/

The authors opted to pursue a kitchen sink model of multivariable logistic regression. Glad to know the Crohn's disease is on the causal path as well as marriage status.

70% from south vs 40% 3.2% with GERD!!!!! vs 12.5% overall Yet, 72% use daily PPI vs. 28% (THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE) 5/

The CoViD+ group is 6% and is bonkers. 3/4 were 30-39, but 18-29 is 1/2. Way more female 70% Latinx compared to 15% overall 70% high school vs 29% overall 82% unmarried vs 46% 63% >$200k vs 7% of overall 75% normal wt vs 39% 73% smokers vs 22% 79% 1-3 drinks vs 36% 4/

Let's take a look at Table 1. Wowsers, this is one of the weirdest table 1's I've ever seen. - Overall cohort looks reasonable, but with really high PPI use for a supposed nationally representative sample. (28%, which nationally probably <10%). 3/

Looking to see if PPI's are associated with CoViD dx (reasonable ?). They asked via survey with methods that are really sparse. Where the respondents paid (I bet they were given the responses)? 2/

This paper has got some MAJOR problems. I don't know why this paper was accepted for publication (nor submitted for publication to be frank). Let's dive in. 1/

Background:Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increase the risk for enteric infections which is likely related to PPI-induced hypochlorhydria. Although the impact of acid suppression on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unknown thus far, prior data revealed that pH ≤3 impairs the infectivity of the similar SARS-CoV-1. Thus, we aimed to determine whether use of PPIsincreasesthe odds for acquiring COVID-19among community-dwelling Americans.Methods: From May 3 to June 24, 2020, we performed a population-based, online survey described to participating adults as a “national health survey.”A multivariable logistic regressionwas performedon reporting a positive COVID-19 test in order to adjust for a wide range of confounding factors and to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of 53,130participants,3,386(6.4%) reported a positive COVID-19 test. In regression analysis, individualsusing PPIs up to once daily(OR 2.15;95% CI,1.90–2.44) or twice daily (OR 3.67;95% CI,2.93–4.60) had significantly increased odds for reporting a positive COVID-19 test when compared to those not taking PPIs. Individuals taking histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) were not at elevated risk.Conclusions: We found evidence of an independent, dose-responserelationship between the use of anti-secretory medicationsand COVID-19 positivity; individuals takingPPIs twicedailyhave higher odds for reporting a positive test when compared to those using PPIs up to oncedaily, and those taking the less potentH2RAs are notat increased risk. Further studies examining the association between PPIs and COVID-19are needed.

Increased Risk of COVID-19 Among Users of Proton Pump Inhibitors

This was just to say: finding risk factors is a risky business if we are not specific our aims and methods end rant.

And there is a place for each, IMHO: It is helpful to identify strong predictive factors that help with diagnosis and prognosis It is helpful to identify the true causes of bad outcomes after infection It is helpful to describe which patients ended up in ICU 13/n

Many will already be familiar with the often helpful distinction between prediction, explanation (or counter-factual prediction) and description Those who are not, this is a great place to start: https://stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/shmueli.pdf… 12/n

This thread is not just to complain (okay, maybe a little) We can do and should do better. To start, by defining what it is we are after when we study these dangerously ambiguous "risk factors" 11/n

With COVID-19, finding risk factors and high risk groups clearly isn't just an academic exercise If we aren't careful, COVID-19 patients will suffer from arbitrary risk grouping, statistical malpractices and/or hidden health(care) inequalities 10/n

Take the example above, the researchers decided to take 60 years as the cut-off for a "young" versus "old" people analysis. Why? Who knows! And why were people with a BMI of 35 and over compared only to people with a BMI in the 30-34 range? There. Are. No. Rules 9/n

That brings us to the second, related issue: there are no rules in the find-a-risk-factor game 8/n

Should people with overweight start losing weight quickly to avoid COVID-19 related morbidity? Or are we looking at a complex relationship between access to care, history of diseases, social economic status and a bad outcome? And why below 60 you ask, and not, say, 53? 7/n

Sounds simple enough? Well, take this example: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa415/5818333… Conclusion: "Unfortunately, obesity in people <60 years is a newly identified epidemiologic risk factor which may contribute to increased morbidity rates ..." 6/n

It depends on what the risk factor represents Is it a factor that when changed immediately changes the risk of a bad outcome? Is it a factor that we should keep in mind when making prognosis? Or is it a factor that simply covaries with other "known risk factors"? 5/n

That brings us to the first problem: an important "risk factor" for, say, a bad outcome (death, for instance) after COVID-19 diagnosis can make good TV AND be completely meaningless for doctors and patients 4/n

The term "risk factor" is popular in medical research. It has been used in literature since at least the 1950s BUT definitions for what a risk factor really is or should be varies. As this article argues quite convincingly

We talk about risk factors all the time. Not just in the medical scientific literature: you will find risk factors being discussed in the popular media and on social media too

Let's talk about the "risk factors" for COVID-19 for a moment 1/n

Share this with whoever needs to hear it: "risk factors", even strong ones that are robustly identified, are almost never useful for making actionable predictions, especially when considered in isolation. TLDR: [Big OR] does not equal [Good, Useful, or Easy Decision]

10.1214/10-STS330

Statistical modeling is a powerful tool for developing and testing theories by way of causal explanation, prediction, and description. In many disciplines there is near-exclusive use of statistical modeling for causal explanation and the assumption that models with high explanatory power are inherently of high predictive power. Conflation between explanation and prediction is common, yet the distinction must be understood for progressing scientific knowledge. While this distinction has been recognized in the philosophy of science, the statistical literature lacks a thorough discussion of the many differences that arise in the process of modeling for an explanatory versus a predictive goal. The purpose of this article is to clarify the distinction between explanatory and predictive modeling, to discuss its sources, and to reveal the practical implications of the distinction to each step in the modeling process.

To Explain or to Predict?

Risk factors for infectious disease severity are determined by the pathogen, host, and environment [1]. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, includes a spectrum of illness, from asymptomatic infection [2] to severe pneumonia characterized by acute respiratory injury in about 20% of patients presenting to medical care [3]. The risk factors associated with disease severity include increased age, diabetes, immunosuppression, and organ failure [3]. Recognition of risk factors for morbidity and mortality is important to determine prevention strategies as well as to target high-risk populations for potential therapeutics.We performed a retrospective analysis of body mass index (BMI) stratified by age in COVID-19–positive symptomatic patients who presented to a large academic hospital system in New York City. Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with signs of respiratory distress were admitted to the hospital. Critical care was defined based on intensive care accommodation status or invasive ventilator documentation in our electronic health record. Patients who were polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID-19 during 3 March–4 April 2020 were extracted from our electronic health record system and analyzed with a χ 2 Wald test using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).Of the 3615 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19, 775 (21%) had a body mass index (BMI; kg/m2) 30–34, and 595 (16% of the total cohort) had a BMI ≥ 35. A total of 1853 (51%) were patients discharged from the ED, 1331 (37%) were admitted to the hospital in acute care, and 431 (12%) were either directly admitted or transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) during admission. During analysis, we found significant differences in admission and ICU care only in patients < 60 years of age with varying BMIs

10.1093/cid/ciaa415

Obesity in Patients Younger Than 60 Years Is a Risk Factor for COVID-19 Hospital Admission

Anders Huitfeldt argues that the answer depends on your definition of “risk factor” and calls for greater clarity in research

10.1136/bmj.i6536

Is caviar a risk factor for being a millionaire?

10.31235/osf.io/4hxga

Burnout is a major occupational problem among healthcare providers. During coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the frontline health workforce is experiencing a high workload and multiple psychosocial stressors, which may affect their mental and emotional health, leading to burnout symptoms. Moreover, sleep deprivation and a critical lack of psychosocial support may aggravate such symptoms amidst COVID-19. Global evidence informs the need for adopting multipronged evidence-based approaches addressing burnout during this pandemic. Such interventions may include increasing the awareness of work-related stress and burnout, promoting mindfulness and self-care practices for promoting mental wellbeing, ensuring optimal mental health services, using digital technologies to address workplace stress and deliver mental health interventions, and improving organizational policies and practices emphasizing on addressing burnout among healthcare providers. As COVID-19 may impose unique workplace stress in addition to preexisting psychosocial burden among individuals, it is essential to prevent burnout through effective measures ensuring the mental and emotional wellbeing of healthcare providers globally.

Burnout Among Healthcare Providers During COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Evidence-based Interventions

10.31235/osf.io/96fd2

The novel coronavirus pandemic led individuals to experience heightened social risks, particularly financial and health related. The strength of a welfare state shapes individual risk perceptions under normal circumstances. My research question is whether it also shapes risk perceptions in abnormal disaster scenarios, for example amidst the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. I test this using the data from the global COVIDiSTRESS survey to compare 70 countries in April of 2020, a month where deaths resulting from Covid-19 affected three-quarters of the world’s societies. Controlling for local timing and severity of the pandemic, welfare state strength predicts lower risk perceptions. However, this it is not a universal effect as I expected. The welfare state impact depends on how quickly a government introduced strong ‘lock down’ measures. The longer it took a government to respond the more the welfare state reduces risk perceptions. Governments that took lock down measures in advance of the virus show no variation in risk perceptions, whereas governments that took 30 days to respond have up to a 1.5 standard deviation range of risk perceptions depending on the strength of the welfare state. I conclude that the welfare state matters very much when governments fail to take effective intervention measures in a global emergency.

The Welfare State and Risk Perceptions: The Novel Coronavirus Pandemic and Public Concern in 70 Countries

10.31235/osf.io/cyqx8

Convalescent plasma therapy holds promise as a transient treatment for COVID-19. Yet, blood products are important sources of HIV infection in low- and middle-income nations. Great care must be taken to prevent plasma therapy from fueling HIV epidemics in the developing world.

Plasma-based COVID-19 treatments in low- and middle-income nations pose a high risk of an HIV epidemic

10.31235/osf.io/cy73b

Populist protests against Coronavirus-related restrictions in the US appear paradoxical in three respects. Populism is generally hostile to expertise, yet it has flourished at a moment when expertise has seemed more indispensable than ever. Populism thrives on crisis and indeed often depends on fabricating a sense of crisis, yet it has accused mainstream politicians and media of overblowing and even inventing the Corona crisis. Populism, finally, is ordinarily protectionist, yet it has presented itself as anti-protectionist during the pandemic and challenged the allegedly overprotective restrictions of the nanny-state. I address each apparent paradox in turn before speculating in conclusion about how populist distrust of expertise, antipathy to government regulation, and skepticism toward elite overprotectiveness may come together – in the context of intersecting medical, economic, political, and epistemic crises – in a potent and potentially dangerous mix.

Paradoxes of Populism during the Pandemic

10.31235/osf.io/p6mws

The universities of Bangladesh used to suffer greatly from the so-called 'session jams' but most public and private universities overcome those difficulties and have mostly eliminated the session jams. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak and resulting lockdown, students are at risk of losing months or in certain cases missing sessions in the next step in their education. The situation is so dire that UNESCO has called it a worldwide unprecedented education emergency. Universities in Bangladesh and the university students in Bangladesh are also facing the same emergency. Online learning can be a potential solution to this problem. Such online learning requires facilities and infrastructure at the universities, a robust data infrastructure at the national level, and adequate computing devices and sufficient and affordable data services for the students. However, very little concrete data exists to understand whether the universities and the students have the technical and financial means to make such online classes effective and successful. This study is one of the first in Bangladesh that attempts to gauge the need and readiness of various stakeholders to implement successful fully online education. This paper suggests a process for measuring the readiness. The results can give the policymakers ideas on areas of improvement and may assist universities to launch fully online classes that will be accessible and affordable by students during and beyond the COVID-19 lockdown phase.

EDUCATION DURING A PANDEMIC: A feasibility study of online classes in Bangladesh to counteract potential study gaps caused by COVID-19 related lockdowns

10.31235/osf.io/9xzgf

The spread of COVID-19 altered use of public spaces, such as parks, with potential effects on human health and well-being. Little is known about park use during the pandemic, how local features (e.g, park availability) influence use, and whether park visits accelerate COVID-19 spread. Using weekly panel data for 620 U.S. counties, we show park visits decreased by 10% beginning March 15, and by 17-35% through May 9, 2020. Net of weekly sample trends, park visits decreased by 2.3% when stay-at-home orders were in effect, yet increased by 8.3% after school closures and 4.1% after business closures. Park visits decreased less during the pandemic in metropolitan counties or where park availability was high. Higher park visits were weakly associated with COVID-19 case growth rate but not incidence. Thus, parks may serve as alternatives for recreation when schools and businesses close, especially where parks are available, with no-to-little influence on COVID-19 spread.

Getting out while staying in: Park use decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially where park availability was low

10.31235/osf.io/4sfv9

The COVID-19 pandemic has limited individuals’ possibility to meet and socialize with others due to the state of emergency restrictions to movements, events and relations imposed in different countries. Most shops and restaurants have been closed and some economic activities have been seriously damaged. This significant disruption may have contributed to a deterioration of people’s mental health on top of other negative consequences of the pandemic. To better understand the indirect consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on people’s lives we have designed the intergen-COVID online survey (https://sites.google.com/unifi.it/intergen-covid), carried out in France, Italy and Spain between the 14th to the 24th of April 2020. Quota sampling on the population 18-plus and post-stratification weights were used to achieve the alignment between the sample (N = 9,056) and the total population on important socio-demographic characteristics. We collected information on four key domains of individuals’ lives: intergenerational (and other type of) relationships (physical and non-physical; means of communication; frequency, etc.); living arrangements; mental health; events experienced during the lockdown (e.g., income loss, death of relative/friend due to COVID-19, worsened partner relationships, time spent with family); intentions for the future 3 years (e.g., fertility, living parental home, marriage, cohabitation, divorce/separation, retirement). In this paper we provide the main results from this survey, focusing on the first three domains abovementioned. The fourth domain consists of questions applicable to different sub-groups of the population and will be analyzed in separate papers. We show that, despite the general reduction of physical contacts, with low educated people reporting a lower reduction in all kinds of physical contacts, non-physical contacts have significantly increased, especially among women. About 50% of respondents felt sad or depressed more often than usual during the lockdown, but mental health deterioration was found to be heterogeneous and vary with respondents’ age, gender and country. Job and income loss, and worsening of relationships quality were other negative consequences often experienced during the lockdown, especially by younger individuals. Finally, although maintaining physical distance, during the lockdown people have experienced a high level of social connection, emotional support and practical help.

Indirect consequences of COVID-19 on people’s lives. Findings from an on-line survey in France, Italy and Spain

10.31235/osf.io/75d6m

Following the outbreak of COVID-19, a number of non-pharmaceutical interventions have been implemented to contain the spread of the pandemic. Despite the recent reduction in the number of infections and deaths in Europe, it is still unclear to which extent these governmental actions have contained the spread of the disease and reduced mortality. In this article, we estimate the effects of reduced human mobility on excess mortality using digital mobility data at the regional level in England and Wales. Specifically, we employ the Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports, which offer an approximation to the changes in mobility due to different social distancing measures. Considering that changes in mobility would require some time before having an effect on mortality, we analyse the relationship between excess mortality and lagged indicators of human mobility. We find a negative association between excess mortality and time spent at home, as well as a positive association with changes in outdoor mobility, after controlling for the time trend of the pandemic and regional differences. We estimate that almost 130,000 excess deaths have been averted as a result of the increased time spent at home. In addition to addressing a key scientific question, our results have important policy implications for future pandemics and a potential second wave of COVID-19.

Linking excess mortality to Google mobility data during the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales

Understanding the mortality impact of COVID-19 requires not only counting the dead, but analyzing how premature the deaths are. We calculate years of life lost (YLL) across 42 countries due to COVID-19 attributable deaths, and also conduct an analysis based on estimated excess deaths. As of June 13th 2020, YLL in heavily affected countries are 2 to 6 times the average seasonal influenza; over two thirds of the YLL result from deaths in ages below 75 and one quarter from deaths below 55; and men have lost 47% more life years than women. The results confirm the large mortality impact of COVID-19 among the elderly. They also call for heightened awareness in devising policies that protect vulnerable demographics losing the largest number of life-years.

10.31235/osf.io/gveaj

Global years of life lost to COVID-19

10.31235/osf.io/vtf5r

In this study, we investigate YouTube’s videos related to vaccines to understand the particularities of the opposition to vaccines in Brazil. The World Health Organization considered vaccine hesitation as one of the greatest threats to global health in 2019. Researchers associated this hesitation to a strengthening of the anti-vaccination movements, suggesting that social media is currently the main spreader of this position. YouTube increasingly becomes a matter of concern, since its recommendation system is identified as a promoter of misinformation and extreme content. Despite YouTube’s statements, misinformation and disinformation (M&D) about vaccines continue to be disseminated in videos in Portuguese, reaching a large audience. We found 52 videos containing M&D about vaccines. The main M&D were the claim of dangerous ingredients in vaccines, the defense of self-direction — freedom of choice, independent research —, the promotion of alternative health services, the myth that vaccines cause diseases, conspiracy theories, and the allegation of vaccine’s severe collateral effects. We identified 39 brands advertising on 13 videos of our M&D sample. Although the YouTube Partner Program is an important source of income, the channels use different economic strategies, such as the selling of courses, and therapies and the use of fundraising platforms. We also found that alternative health channels spread distrust about traditional institutions to promote themselves as trusted sources for the audience and thereby profit with alternative health services.

Natural stings: alternative health services selling distrust about vaccines on YouTube

10.31235/osf.io/vndqr

Authoritative economic growth forecasts are often optimistically biased. One possible reason is that growth often has negatively skewed variation--negative shocks tend to have larger magnitudes than positive shocks, as the Great Recession and COVID-19 crisis illustrate. Negative skewness means that average growth over decades is smaller than typical-year (median or mode) growth, which would positively bias forecasts based on typical years. Here, we quantify this aspect of negative skewness in real per-capita GDP growth since the Industrial Revolution (1820-2016), by comparing medians and means across countries, regions, and time windows. Over decadal periods, we find mean growth rates to be <1%/y smaller than median growth rates in most countries and regions (median 0.23%/y across countries). Surprisingly, we find these differences are driven by negative skewness in both large- and medium-magnitude shocks, rather than only large shocks ('black swan' events). We also find our measure of negative skewness correlated with slow average per-capita GDP and population growth, high per-capita GDP growth volatility, and high per-capita GDP and population, building on previous studies. We find that recent over-projections of growth--by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios informing climate change research--have mostly been larger than can be explained solely by negative skewness, suggesting other sources of bias exist.

Optimistically biased economic growth forecasts and negatively skewed annual variation

10.31235/osf.io/tdf8c

The global pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift to remote work that will likely persist to some degree into the future. Telecommuting’s impact on flexibility and work family conflict is a critical question for researchers and policy-makers. Our study addresses this question with data collected before and during the COVID-19 crisis: the 2003-2018 American Time Use Survey (ATUS, N = 19,179) and the April and May 2020 COVID Impact Survey (N = 784). Comparing mothers and fathers who work exclusively at the workplace, exclusively from home, and part-day from home, we describe differences in time spent on housework, childcare, and leisure; the nature of time worked at home; and the subjective experiences of telecommuting. In addition to a broad descriptive portrait, we take advantage of a quasi-experimental design in the ATUS leave supplements to examine time working at home among those who report ever telecommuting, providing estimates of telecommuting’s effect on other uses of time that better approximate causal relationships than prior studies. We find that gender gaps in housework are larger for telecommuters, and, among telecommuters, larger on telecommuting days. Conversely, telecommuting may shrink the gender gap in childcare, particularly among couples with two full time earners, although childcare more frequently impinges upon mothers’ work time. Survey data collected following the March COVID19 stay-at-home orders show that telecommuting mothers more frequently report feelings of anxiety, loneliness and depression than telecommuting fathers. Early estimates of responses to the COVID19 pandemic offer insights into future implications of telecommuting for gender equality at work.

Gender Differences in Telecommuting and Implications for Inequality at Home and Work

10.31235/osf.io/8wcgz

COVID-19 contact tracing applications have been deployed at a fast pace around the world and may be a key policy instrument to contain future waves in Canada. This study aims to explain public opinion toward cell phone contact tracing using a survey experiment conducted with a representative sample of Canadian respondents. We build upon an established theory in evolutionary psychology—disease avoidance—to predict how media coverage of the pandemic affects public support for containment measures. We report three key findings. First, exposure to a news item that shows people ignoring social distancing rules causes an increase in support for cell phone contact tracing. Second, pre-treatment covariates such as anxiety and a belief that other people are not following the rules rank among the strongest predictors of support for COVID-19 apps. And third, while a majority of respondents approve the reliance on cell phone contact tracing, many of them hold ambivalent thoughts about the technology. Our analysis of answers to an open-ended question on the topic suggests that concerns for rights and freedoms remain a salient preoccupation.

Explaining Support for COVID-19 Cell Phone Contact Tracing

While big brands can afford to pause their addiction to Facebook, most advertisers cannot participate, as they have become so dependent on Facebook’s ad-targeting tools. 

Why Most Advertisers Can’t Afford to Boycott Facebook

The Cyberlaw Clinic is excited to have collaborated with the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) to release a report today on the impact of the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on intermediary liability laws in North America. The full report is available for download on SSRN. Article 19.17 of the new USMCA contains provisions modeled on Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act that protect platforms like Facebook and Google from being held liable for harmful or unlawful content posted by their users. While the liability shield the USMCA provides is quite similar to CDA § 230, the provisions differ in that the USMCA permits courts to order injunctions requiring platf orms to take down content.

230-esque Language in the USMCA: What Does It Mean for the US and Canada?

The COVID-19 pandemic has understandably dominated public discourse, crowding out other important issues such as climate change. Currently, if climate change enters the arena of public debate, it primarily does so in direct relation to the pandemic. In two experiments, we investigated (1) whether portraying the response to the COVID-19 threat as a “trial run” for future climate action would increase climate-change concern and mitigation support, and (2) whether portraying climate change as a concern that needs to take a “back seat” while focus lies on economic recovery would decrease climate-change concern and mitigation support. We found no support for the effectiveness of a trial-run frame in either experiment. In Experiment 1, we found that a back-seat frame reduced participants’ support for mitigative action. In Experiment 2, the back-seat framing reduced both climate-change concern and mitigation support; a combined inoculation and refutation was able to offset the drop in climate concern but not the reduction in mitigation support.

10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101464

Using the COVID-19 economic crisis to frame climate change as a secondary issue reduces mitigation support

Climate Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage. Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.

climate feedback

Argumentation is an integral part of how we negotiate our everyday lives in a complex world. In many contexts it matters that arguments are rational, that means, it is not enough that they are simply (subjectively) convincing. Rational argument involves ‘norms’ or ‘standards’ against which actual arguments can be compared. These standards provide a yardstick for argument quality, and allow us to make statements about when particular arguments are weak or strong. These standards articulate considerations that we should all find ourselves happy to adopt, once we think about them for a bit. Specifically, we should be happy to adopt them if we want to maximise the chance that what we come to believe is actually true. While we might not always care about that when we are trying to convince others, we typically don’t want the wool pulled over our eyes when arguments are addressed at us. This site tries to illustrate these standards for rational argument in action: specifically, we provide critical analyses of written articles, opinion pieces and debates that are in the public domain. For these pieces, we provide a kind of ‘argument checking’ that complements fact-checking provided by websites such as Politifact and FullFact. The academic research that underlies our analyses is conducted in across a number of different disciplines: philosophy, communication studies, psychology and computer science. Some of it is found in textbooks on critical thinking or guides to better argument. But some of it is also quite technical and less accessible to the general public. For this reason, our website will be adding further background materials on key topics. This should both help site readers to understand the critical analyses and to learn more on rational argument in general. The site has grown out of our own research on rational argument. We hope readers will find it useful, and we hope it will contribute to making public debate a little bit better. This site is part of the Rational Argument Project.

Project background

@MLevitt_NP2013 @ProfKarolSikora @FatEmperor @freddiesayers @AlistairHaimes @RuminatorDan @InProportion2 @LockdownNo @JohnDStats @daniellevitt22 @SunetraGupta @profshanecrotty @unherd @hendrikstreeck @carlheneghan @kerpen @andreascaie @Cescoxonta @profshanecrotty

In an unscheduled release, Deutsche Post said preliminary figures showed that its quarterly operating profit came in around 890 million euros, well above average analyst forecasts for 811 million, according to Refinitiv data.It said volumes started to recover in the second quarter and had seen a rise in shipments driven by e-commerce, both internationally and in the German parcel business.

Deutsche Post reports strong results, to pay staff bonus

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.14549

Importance  The ability to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the prehospital emergency setting could inform strategies for infection control and use of personal protective equipment. However, little is known about the presentation of patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency care, particularly those who used 911 emergency medical services (EMS).Objective  To describe patient characteristics and prehospital presentation of patients with COVID-19 cared for by EMS.Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective cohort study included 124 patients who required 911 EMS care for COVID-19 in King County, Washington, a large metropolitan region covering 2300 square miles with 2.2 million residents in urban, suburban, and rural areas, between February 1, 2020, and March 18, 2020.Exposures  COVID-19 was diagnosed by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Test results were available a median (interquartile range) of 5 (3-9) days after the EMS encounter.Main Outcomes and Measures  Prevalence of clinical characteristics, symptoms, examination signs, and EMS impression and care.Results  Of the 775 confirmed COVID-19 cases in King County, EMS responded to 124 (16.0%), with a total of 147 unique 911 encounters. The mean (SD) age was 75.7 (13.2) years, 66 patients (53.2%) were women, 47 patients (37.9%) had 3 or more chronic health conditions, and 57 patients (46.0%) resided in a long-term care facility. Based on EMS evaluation, 43 of 147 encounters (29.3%) had no symptoms of fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Based on individual examination findings, fever, tachypnea, or hypoxia were only present in a limited portion of cases, as follows: 43 of 84 encounters (51.2%), 42 of 131 (32.1%), and 60 of 112 (53.6%), respectively. Advanced care was typically not required, although in 24 encounters (16.3%), patients received care associated with aerosol-generating procedures. As of June 1, 2020, mortality among the study cohort was 52.4% (65 patients).Conclusions and Relevance  The findings of this cohort study suggest that screening based on conventional COVID-19 symptoms or corresponding examination findings of febrile respiratory illness may not possess the necessary sensitivity for early diagnostic suspicion, at least in the prehospital emergency setting. The findings have potential implications for early identification of COVID-19 and effective strategies to mitigate infectious risk during emergency care.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Receiving Emergency Medical Services in King County, Washington

The summer gives us a chance to eliminate the virus and reopen the economy without pointless debates about 1 or 2 metre distancing measures

The pandemic is not over – we need to push now for a zero-coronavirus Britain

Having studied outbreaks in poor countries, I look at US & UK and see what a privileged position these countries are in giving their wealth & resources.They can truly protect their residents unlike poor countries which have all the odds stacked against them.Why don’t they do it?

Tough decisions ahead & can’t have it all without a vaccine. Opening schools, or keeping pubs & bars open. Keeping borders largely closed or having free movement & constant outbreaks. Saying popular things like ‘eat out & party’ or prioritising those shielding & vulnerable.

Gov’ts need to look ahead 6-8 months and make a plan, make a strategy for how to protect their residents lives & jobs & how they will weather the storm. Encouraging people to pretend the virus is gone & to celebrate the end of the pandemic is negligent.

I know the economy is suffering & jobs are being lost. I recognise the toll that lockdown has taken and I’m not ‘pro-lockdown’ at all. In fact my worry is about a second lockdown & how to avoid this happening. Lockdown/release cycles will destroy society & the economy.

Why would the UK be any different? This is what I asked myself also on Feb & March when the UK stayed fully open while others moved in opposite direction. Eliminate the virus over the summer then open up safely. Otherwise enter winter & flu season in a dangerous halfway house.

I look at what’s happening in several U.S. states including my home state Florida; I look at Israel and Spain and Iran and...and I know that everyone wants the economy to go full steam ahead in the UK. But I fear we will be in another lockdown within months, if not weeks.

ONLINE EVENT – While there has been significant attention given to foreign influence operations by state-actors like Iran, far less has been given to how global events shape—and skew—the reality depicted by the Iranian regime to the Iranian people.

Information in Iran: How recent global events are used to shape and skew reality

#Texas is a disaster! RECORD day for deaths, hospitalizations, and cases. Positive rate is stable, but remains high. Prayer and magical thinking is not enough. The lack of federal leadership combined with a lethargic and political response from @GregAbbott_TX has cost lives.

Hospitalized pts w/Covid in #Texas growing by almost 6% per day. In some regions, already near capacity. In < 2 weeks, entire state will be challenged (as NY, CT, MA, & NJ were) to maintain normal hospital operations (already suspended elective surgeries in many regions).

Health officials praise Laos after coronavirus-free declaration (some new concerns here, so far nothing major) Cambodia has zero reported deaths, broadly consistent with anecdotal evidence too. Vietnam reports 14 new cases, all imported.  Broader record of zero deaths. No new Covid cases in Thailand Tuesday. Have you noticed that those four countries are right next to each other?  (Within southeast Asia, most cases are in the relatively distant Indonesia and Philippines.) I genuinely do not understand why this heterogeneity is not discussed much, much more. Those countries also have very different institutions and systems of government and state capacity.  Do you really think this is all because they are such policy geniuses? Those countries have instituted some good policies, to be sure.  But so has Australia, where there is a major coronavirus resurgence. Inquiring minds wish to know.  One hypothesis is that they have a less contagious strain, another is that they have accumulated T-cell immunities from previous coronaviruses.  Or perhaps both?  Or perhaps other factors are playing a role? I do not understand why the world is not obsessed with this question.  And should you be happy if you have, in the past, traveled to these countries as a tourist?

Southeast Asia coronavirus update