4 ms·

Clickbaity and really questionable science. The author did 0.1% sample survey of adults and asked about covid deaths in the family. I am sure a common man is no

Clickbaity and really questionable science. The author did 0.1% sample survey of adults and asked about covid deaths in the family. I am sure a common man is no expert to tell if someone died of covid, or with covid or during covid - unless there is a medical report. I would not trust any conclusions of phone survey of such small size of general population. The paper would have more credibility if the looked at health records. I am just saying, this is hard problem and the authors of the paper did a very lousy job and with questionable standards.

101011 5y ago
Any surveys of India are going to amount to a small sample size across the entire population - India is massive. Also, they're almost certainly undercounting the extremely poor, a very sizable group that is going to fall through the cracks no matter what standards you're trying to abide by. There's a reason the title says "may" - there's an acknowledgement of room for error here. The point is, India, in spite of their lack of adequate healthcare, are showing mortality rates well below other countries. I applaud the attempt to discern what the toll may truly be, flawed as it may be. I'm sure if it was as simple as looking at public health data then they wouldn't have spent the money calling people in a survey. I'm fine with people calling out error margins for research, but do you really have to say this is lousy clickbaity work?
silentguy 5y ago
Did you read the attached paper? Where did you find the 0.1% number and what do you mean by it? Do you mean that the sample size was 0.1% of Indian population? And, do you know what the minimum sample size should be for such study? Here is the attached paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00746-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

101011 5y ago

Any surveys of India are going to amount to a small sample size across the entire population - India is massive. Also, they're almost certainly undercounting the extremely poor, a very sizable group that is going to fall through the cracks no matter what standards you're trying to abide by. There's a reason the title says "may" - there's an acknowledgement of room for error here. The point is, India, in spite of their lack of adequate healthcare, are showing mortality rates well below other countries. I applaud the attempt to discern what the toll may truly be, flawed as it may be. I'm sure if it was as simple as looking at public health data then they wouldn't have spent the money calling people in a survey. I'm fine with people calling out error margins for research, but do you really have to say this is lousy clickbaity work?

silentguy 5y ago

Did you read the attached paper? Where did you find the 0.1% number and what do you mean by it? Do you mean that the sample size was 0.1% of Indian population? And, do you know what the minimum sample size should be for such study? Here is the attached paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00746-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...