Another horrible piece I've had the displeasure of reading. "According to a study by Cambridge University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy, the number of

Another horrible piece I've had the displeasure of reading. "According to a study by Cambridge University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy, the number of Britons self-reporting as “happy” halved in just three weeks at the start of lockdown. Using data taken from YouGov Weekly Mood Tracker surveys and Google searches, the researchers found that the number of people declaring themselves as “happy” went from 51 per cent just before the UK’s first Covid-19 fatality to 25 per cent by the time lockdown began on 23 March. However, once lockdown restrictions started to be lifted, these figures reversed, with happiness levels increasing back to close to what they were pre-pandemic, reaching 47 per cent by the end of May." - No link to the study - Happiness levels 51 percent -> 25 percent -> 47 percent. The baseline/absolute level of happiness did not increase. Also I'm not sure how you can claim the lockdowns increased the happiness when levels increased when lockdown restrictions started to be lifted. I don't know the general perceived status of Independent as a news/media source compared to the BBC or CNN or Fox or NYT, but the title could use some serious improvement. It also irks me when all across the internet today I see validity given to a topic if a certain paper or study is cited as reason for the fact they claim. I believe there are too many studies out there that both sides claim as proving their point. Examples of this can prominently been seen related to COVID topics and on Reddit where comments counter one another with papers being cited. Rarely do people question the validity of the paper, the integrity of the data, the motives of the researchers, etc. Precedence is given to institutional status in the name of science. (ie. A Stanford or Oxford paper)