Does science matter? White House COVID Czar pushes flawed study
Using bad research to advance your argument will backfire
Recently, I saw several credible scientists use flawed studies to push policies they favor. Here is example #1, the White House COVID Czar
Edouard Mathieu @redouad
Here's the latest data from the US CDC on Covid vaccine effectiveness, with individuals categorized from unvaccinated (0 dose) to 2 boosters. During the last week of May, a full primary vaccination + 2 boosters meant a risk of death cut by 96% compared to unvaccinated people. https://t.co/xMezs1Ho44The tweet links to this “analysis.”
I went all the way down the rabbit hole to find the methods, but it was threadbare. I can barely tell what the authors did. But here are at least some problems
The effect size of 96% RRR in mortality is too good to be true. Ashish is right, we seldom see effects this big. Ironically, the person who proved that is John Ioannidis in JAMA. Instead of amplifying the unlikely estimate, a scientist might want to approach it cautiously.
The graph must be for 50 and over, because only 50 and over have access to dose 2 of booster, but this is not stated anywhere.
There have to be deaths associated with COVID19 and not all-cause deaths, due to the raw risk sizes, but that is not stated anywhere in the Figure. I found it only in the underlying linked CDC table.
The study appears to have NO ADJUSTMENT at all for any differences between the people (besides age, presumably adjusting for 51 vs 71, for e.g.). But people who seek out booster #2 are much more likely to be well educated, in better health, of different socioeconomic status. Perhaps there are also differences by behavior, race, and many other variables. This analysis does nothing to correct for these important modifiers
These are presumably deaths from COVID mixed with those with COVID— the authors have no way to disambiguate this; worse, the testing practices among those dying might vary based on vaccination status, so ascertainment bias may be at play here. I.e. an unvaccinated person in the unit may get more swabs for the vid.
The truth is for the healthy 51 year old who had 3 doses, we don’t know if they derive additional benefit for death and serious illness from the 4th. If they had 2 or 3 doses plus Omicron, the proposition is very unlikely. The fact this study finds a large difference— a massive reduction in death from the 4th dose even compared to those who had 3, even after widespread Omicron breakthrough— should be a clue it is filled with confounding. It is bullshit. That should be enough reason for the White House COVID Czar to not tweet it.
Sadly, we live in a world where science takes a back seat to propaganda that helps your policy goal. But it is self-defeating. Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. Watching scientists push flawed studies that happen to fit their policy goals will lead to further distrust from the public. Better to make your argument without this study.
In a future post, I will take on the other example, but here is a teaser
Paul Mainwood @PaulMainwood
If it is a Sokal-type hoax (see here for the original) https://t.co/Hc6NtiK8cN then it has succeeded, at least on Twitter, where various accounts that claim or imply expertise have already recommended it as evidence, including the German Health minister.
Hypothesis:
Government ruins everything that it touches.
Discuss?
I'm worried that Dr. Jha (rhymes with "blah" --- as in blah-blah-blah) may have wandered off the trail. At first, I was just tickled that he got the White House gig. He's a nice guy whose compelling presentation of self says, "Calm down folks, let me explain things". In that regard, one almost recalls Lyndon Johnson's habit of frequently citing Isaiah 1:18 ("Come now, let us reason together"). However, the Grease & Grin Syndrome unfortunately became an obvious diagnosis after observing Jah's tactics as he settled into his new public role. What a shame: A presumably rigorous epidemiology maven with a great CV (and a DEAN from a major academic center) resorting now and then to using cute jingles, syrupy jargon, gub-ment doublespeak, evasions via application of semantic Kung Fu, and even a few dollops here and there of plain bullshit. There has to be something about hanging around at the White House, shooting the breeze with Secret Service people, and standing at a podium on national television over and over that will invariably (a) Short-circuit intracranial wiring involved in scientific thought and (b) Activate the odious self-promotion afterburner. I think the latter is surely not being consciously practiced by Jha -- it's just a reflexive, rather common human imperfection that nobody ameliorates without making solid efforts to quench egocentricity with precision, shut it down, and put it back in its cage. He could really benefit from watching some video replays of his various performances to date.