Response to Letters Re: "Assessing mandatory stay‐ at‐ home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐ 19"
release_n4qe7gq7czcjrglh7eqgn2lrki
by
Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John Ioannidis
Abstract
We are pleased to see the active discussion around our study on the relationship between mandatory stay- at- home and business closures and COVID-19 spread.1 In this response, we address issues raised in three letters.2-4 The claim that the study had sample size of n=10 countries is incorrect.2 Each of the 16 regression models represented in Figure 4 included, on average, 1,362 data points (range 771-3,493) on 52 subnational units (range 27-129). Each panel regression is, in effect, a "mini-meta-analysis": the effect size is evaluated within each subnational unit, and the overall effect size is estimated from a pooling of these "within" effects. So while we aggregated the results to 10 countries, the sample size is not n=10.
In text/plain
format
Archived Files and Locations
application/pdf 93.2 kB
file_7dmpnsweqrhgdch36s4p6xpuiq
|
onlinelibrary.wiley.com (publisher) web.archive.org (webarchive) |
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Crossref Metadata (via API)
Worldcat
SHERPA/RoMEO (journal policies)
wikidata.org
CORE.ac.uk
Semantic Scholar
Google Scholar