7 ms·

Another odd thing: One of the co-authors of the study, Andrew Bogan seems to manage a hedge fund, and then published a WSJ op-ed on the study. He didn't note in

Another odd thing: One of the co-authors of the study, Andrew Bogan seems to manage a hedge fund, and then published a WSJ op-ed on the study. He didn't note in the op-ed that he was involved in the study (and a co-author no less!). A lot of conflict of interest potential here. These authors seem to have an agenda and end-result in mind, no matter the data. Edit: here's the WSJ op-ed (paywalled): https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronavirus-isnt-as-deadly-as-we-thought-11587155298 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-data-suggest-the-coronaviru... The more I think about this, the more outrageous I find this. It's a form of astroturfing to advance the beliefs of the authors of the study. (Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began. This means their analysis deserves even more scrutiny)

pacala 6y ago
They made a hypothesis and conducted a study to validate it. Perhaps they are wrong. Would be far from the first time studies are proven wrong. At least they did something. Make a better study. Make a hundred better studies. Prove them wrong!
- fao_ 6y ago
  I think the user is referring to the conflict of interest and the lack of interest in proper ethical conduct by one of the co-authors. If they won't follow generally accepted ethical guidelines, what other rules will they ignore or bend?
  - pacala 6y ago
    The conflict of interest part is fair. The "Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began" is not. That's how science is done: you advance a theory, then you conduct experiments to validate / invalidate the theory.
    - strangeloops85 6y ago
      It's one thing to advance a theory in academic papers during normal times. It's another to pen widely-read op-eds advancing said theories in the middle of a pandemic. Their theory and op-eds have already, and are, influencing policy - and it's clear they want to influence policy. Hence, it merits more scrutiny than the average study. These results are being used by policymakers to make decisions - skepticism and criticism is most definitely warranted. I'm in no position to conduct studies, though I am certainly doing things in my wheelhouse to help. Other studies will clear up matters, but results may be weeks away. And these results may be used to end quarantines in the intervening time.
    - mediaman 6y ago
      I think there's a difference between postulating a hypothesis, and then testing it, which is what I believe you're referring to, versus going around advocating a particular position as being true and then "testing" it. When people are strong advocates of a particular position, they tend to find ways to design or process experimental data in ways that support that position. The ways in which bias can seep into the experiment are not always easy for outsiders to see. So it comes down to whether their "advancing this theory" went beyond what a reasonable scientist would do in postulating a hypothesis that needs testing.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  It's not just a matter of conducting a study and "perhaps they are wrong". If it can be shown that their study made unreasonable assumptions, and there was a conflict of interest, then any conclusions drawn from the study need to be taken with a grain of salt. When a primary researcher in the study has a financial interest in a specific outcome, it is at best a poorly designed study, and should be suspect. When the author has, prior to actually collecting data, advanced a desire to influence policy as if the results were a foregone conclusion, that is a problem.
- fhnuzoag 6y ago
  They made a hypothesis and conducted a study that cannot falsify their hypothesis, even if repeated a hundred times.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bosswipe 6y ago
That also reflects very poorly on the WSJ.
- melling 6y ago
  Many of the people who read the Wall Street Journal love those articles. There are 1400 comments I read the Journal every day. News like the Stanford study is weaponized. They tend to do hit pieces on climate change too Here’s a recent WSJ comment: “ USC just replicated the Stanford study proving that the COVID death rate is 0.1% - 0.2% and the true infection rate is 50x the official numbers. This means every model has been wrong, lockdowns were foolish, and this is a bad flu. In light of this new information I don't understand why the narrative hasn't immediately shifted to an unconditional opening of the economy everywhere. Please, enlighten me.”
  - throwaway358302 6y ago
    If you believe the medical reports there were 9000 deaths from COVID-19 in the last 2 months in NYC. There were < 200 from flu. Or are you claiming those numbers are fake?
  - EGreg 6y ago
    Not at all EVEN IF the rate is 0.1% this virus spreads much faster than the flu due to having no symptoms. We still need to flatten the curve to prevent overwhelming the hospitals.
    - mattmanser 6y ago
      That's a quote that's supposed to highlight the absurd comments that you're responding to,
- ryeights 6y ago
  The WSJ's opinion page is mindbogglingly bad. Their pro-Trump stance borders on worship, and almost every article is dedicated to either promoting Trump or defending one of his positions (in this case, lifting lockdowns). The comment section is even worse. Breitbart-esque.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began. Declaring a hypothesis publicly and then gathering data to see if it’s supported or not is good science, not bad.
- karlshea 6y ago
  Is it though? Why declare publicly at all then? You’d just be giving the impression that when you do collect the data you’d be cherry picking, exactly like what’s happening here.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Is it though? Yes. It’s widely accepted as best practice by mainstream scientists. > Why declare publicly at all then? So people know what you were testing and so you can’t fudge it to a test more convenient for your career, politics, or bank balance.
    - wahern 6y ago
      > It’s widely accepted as best practice by mainstream scientists. Simply declaring your hypothesis is not best practice. Publishing the details of your experiment--the protocols, analytical methods, etc--are what's best practice, AFAIU. Few scientists run an experiment they expect to fail, and without publishing the details ahead of time it's trivial to fudge an outcome, so simply pronouncing your hypothesis is entirely uninteresting.
      - parineum 6y ago
        This is one of the sources of the replication crisis. People would do experiments to test a hypothesis but find nothing conclusive, they would then p-hack their data until they found something worth publishing back-hypothesize. The solution is to publish hypothesis and test methodology ahead of time and publish your data afterward.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amazingman 6y ago
Sociopathic political manipulation (via astroturfing) in aid of bumping a hedge fund a few points? Sounds about right. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-25/how-hedge-funds-secretly-get-their-way-in-washington https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-25/how-hedge...

pacala 6y ago

They made a hypothesis and conducted a study to validate it. Perhaps they are wrong. Would be far from the first time studies are proven wrong. At least they did something. Make a better study. Make a hundred better studies. Prove them wrong!

fao_ 6y ago
I think the user is referring to the conflict of interest and the lack of interest in proper ethical conduct by one of the co-authors. If they won't follow generally accepted ethical guidelines, what other rules will they ignore or bend?
- pacala 6y ago
  The conflict of interest part is fair. The "Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began" is not. That's how science is done: you advance a theory, then you conduct experiments to validate / invalidate the theory.
  - strangeloops85 6y ago
    It's one thing to advance a theory in academic papers during normal times. It's another to pen widely-read op-eds advancing said theories in the middle of a pandemic. Their theory and op-eds have already, and are, influencing policy - and it's clear they want to influence policy. Hence, it merits more scrutiny than the average study. These results are being used by policymakers to make decisions - skepticism and criticism is most definitely warranted. I'm in no position to conduct studies, though I am certainly doing things in my wheelhouse to help. Other studies will clear up matters, but results may be weeks away. And these results may be used to end quarantines in the intervening time.
  - mediaman 6y ago
    I think there's a difference between postulating a hypothesis, and then testing it, which is what I believe you're referring to, versus going around advocating a particular position as being true and then "testing" it. When people are strong advocates of a particular position, they tend to find ways to design or process experimental data in ways that support that position. The ways in which bias can seep into the experiment are not always easy for outsiders to see. So it comes down to whether their "advancing this theory" went beyond what a reasonable scientist would do in postulating a hypothesis that needs testing.
ineedasername 6y ago
It's not just a matter of conducting a study and "perhaps they are wrong". If it can be shown that their study made unreasonable assumptions, and there was a conflict of interest, then any conclusions drawn from the study need to be taken with a grain of salt. When a primary researcher in the study has a financial interest in a specific outcome, it is at best a poorly designed study, and should be suspect. When the author has, prior to actually collecting data, advanced a desire to influence policy as if the results were a foregone conclusion, that is a problem.
fhnuzoag 6y ago
They made a hypothesis and conducted a study that cannot falsify their hypothesis, even if repeated a hundred times.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bosswipe 6y ago

That also reflects very poorly on the WSJ.

melling 6y ago
Many of the people who read the Wall Street Journal love those articles. There are 1400 comments I read the Journal every day. News like the Stanford study is weaponized. They tend to do hit pieces on climate change too Here’s a recent WSJ comment: “ USC just replicated the Stanford study proving that the COVID death rate is 0.1% - 0.2% and the true infection rate is 50x the official numbers. This means every model has been wrong, lockdowns were foolish, and this is a bad flu. In light of this new information I don't understand why the narrative hasn't immediately shifted to an unconditional opening of the economy everywhere. Please, enlighten me.”
- throwaway358302 6y ago
  If you believe the medical reports there were 9000 deaths from COVID-19 in the last 2 months in NYC. There were < 200 from flu. Or are you claiming those numbers are fake?
- EGreg 6y ago
  Not at all EVEN IF the rate is 0.1% this virus spreads much faster than the flu due to having no symptoms. We still need to flatten the curve to prevent overwhelming the hospitals.
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    That's a quote that's supposed to highlight the absurd comments that you're responding to,
ryeights 6y ago
The WSJ's opinion page is mindbogglingly bad. Their pro-Trump stance borders on worship, and almost every article is dedicated to either promoting Trump or defending one of his positions (in this case, lifting lockdowns). The comment section is even worse. Breitbart-esque.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> Note that the senior author Bhattacharya and of course Ionnadis were advancing this theory before data collection began. Declaring a hypothesis publicly and then gathering data to see if it’s supported or not is good science, not bad.

karlshea 6y ago
Is it though? Why declare publicly at all then? You’d just be giving the impression that when you do collect the data you’d be cherry picking, exactly like what’s happening here.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Is it though? Yes. It’s widely accepted as best practice by mainstream scientists. > Why declare publicly at all then? So people know what you were testing and so you can’t fudge it to a test more convenient for your career, politics, or bank balance.
  - wahern 6y ago
    > It’s widely accepted as best practice by mainstream scientists. Simply declaring your hypothesis is not best practice. Publishing the details of your experiment--the protocols, analytical methods, etc--are what's best practice, AFAIU. Few scientists run an experiment they expect to fail, and without publishing the details ahead of time it's trivial to fudge an outcome, so simply pronouncing your hypothesis is entirely uninteresting.
    - parineum 6y ago
      This is one of the sources of the replication crisis. People would do experiments to test a hypothesis but find nothing conclusive, they would then p-hack their data until they found something worth publishing back-hypothesize. The solution is to publish hypothesis and test methodology ahead of time and publish your data afterward.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

amazingman 6y ago

Sociopathic political manipulation (via astroturfing) in aid of bumping a hedge fund a few points? Sounds about right. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-25/how-hedge-funds-secretly-get-their-way-in-washington https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-25/how-hedge...