Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study

Published: 05 March 2021
R. F. Savaris, G. Pumi, J. Dalzochio & R. Kunst 

A recent mathematical model has suggested that staying at home did not play a dominant role in reducing COVID-19 transmission. The second wave of cases in Europe, in regions that were considered as COVID-19 controlled, may raise some concerns. Our objective was to assess the association between staying at home (%) and the reduction/increase in the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in several regions in the world.

In this ecological study, data from www.google.com/covid19/mobility/, ourworldindata.org and covid.saude.gov.br were combined. Countries with > 100 deaths and with a Healthcare Access and Quality Index of ≥ 67 were included. Data were preprocessed and analyzed using the difference between number of deaths/million between 2 regions and the difference between the percentage of staying at home. The analysis was performed using linear regression with special attention to residual analysis.

After preprocessing the data, 87 regions around the world were included, yielding 3741 pairwise comparisons for linear regression analysis. Only 63 (1.6%) comparisons were significant. With our results, we were not able to explain if COVID-19 mortality is reduced by staying at home in ~ 98% of the comparisons after epidemiological weeks 9 to 34.

【読む・観る・理解を深める】
➡ ロックダウンに反対し続けているハーバード大学の著名な感染学者です。よくバンされてます。: Lockdowns were not the right approach
➡ 尾身ちゃん、「行動制限ではダメだ」って、いま頃気付いたの? 遅っせーんだよ! あなた専門家なの? 本当にセンス悪いねぇ。
「ロックダウンは効果がない」と主張する専門家は大勢いました。「ロックダウンしても死亡率に大差はない」という学術論文も沢山でています。でも、日本では全く報道されません。
➡ コロナ問題やワクチン問題を、科学的・体系的に理解したい方は、「科学的事実①:はじめに」から「新型コロナウイルス感染症に関する科学的事実(第三版:2021.5.24)」をお読みください。