Talk:COVID-19/Efficacy of lockdown
Add topicLatest comment: 2 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic Scope of the page is efficacy
Thomas Wieland article
[edit source]@Bert Niehaus: Is there anything wrong with the following article?
- A phenomenological approach to assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 related nonpharmaceutical interventions in Germany by Thomas Wieland, 21 July 2020, sciencedirect.com
I see that it is phenomenological which would make it generally much weaker than RCT as a support for a claim, but that is part of the title, open for anyone to see. It seems peer-reviewed, isn't it? Are there known deficiencies with the article? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- COVID-19 is a communicable disease with a transmission from humans to humans. Therefore addressing the connectivity between people (e.g. behavioural change) is a logical option for risk mitigation as long as vaccination or secure, widely available pharmaceutical interventions are not available. Washing hands, distancing, avoiding large events and increasing risk literacy in the population (e.g. by science communication - "podcast" of an epidemiologist Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten) must be assessed in the consequence on COVID-19 and other communicable diseases. Scientific analysis of the impact of such risk mitigation strategies by nonpharmaceutical interventions by Wieland,... is addressed in scientific peer-reviewed papers itself, so that future intervention can be based of that scientific results about COVID-19 related nonpharmaceutical interventions as a combination of multiple risk mitigation strategies. Even if those COVID-19 related nonpharmaceutical interventions were implemented for COVID-19 they are not virus-specific like drugs as nucleoside/nucleotide analogue. Therefore you might also expect a positive impact on other communicable diseases that share the same transmission route as COVID-19. Even if that might be a logical chain of thoughts scientific results about that should be added to a learning resource. Best regards and thank you for contribution to the learning resource, --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 09:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand. What is wrong with the Thomas Wieland article, if anything? Above, I do not find any deficiency of Thomas Wieland article, but maybe I did not read attentively enough. Is the article incorrect? Is it misleading? Is there a published criticism of the article? Is there a particular quote from that article that can be highlighted as incorrect or misleading?--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- COVID-19 is a communicable disease with a transmission from humans to humans. Therefore addressing the connectivity between people (e.g. behavioural change) is a logical option for risk mitigation as long as vaccination or secure, widely available pharmaceutical interventions are not available. Washing hands, distancing, avoiding large events and increasing risk literacy in the population (e.g. by science communication - "podcast" of an epidemiologist Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten) must be assessed in the consequence on COVID-19 and other communicable diseases. Scientific analysis of the impact of such risk mitigation strategies by nonpharmaceutical interventions by Wieland,... is addressed in scientific peer-reviewed papers itself, so that future intervention can be based of that scientific results about COVID-19 related nonpharmaceutical interventions as a combination of multiple risk mitigation strategies. Even if those COVID-19 related nonpharmaceutical interventions were implemented for COVID-19 they are not virus-specific like drugs as nucleoside/nucleotide analogue. Therefore you might also expect a positive impact on other communicable diseases that share the same transmission route as COVID-19. Even if that might be a logical chain of thoughts scientific results about that should be added to a learning resource. Best regards and thank you for contribution to the learning resource, --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 09:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Scope of the page is efficacy
[edit source]This page was created intentionally to focus on efficacy. I propose you (Bert Niehaus) create a broader page for lockdowns if you wish, but leave the dedicated page focused on efficacy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I did create a broader page for lockdown that included your contributions about lockdown efficacy so that the title "Lockdown" matches with the content on the page. You removed that page and restored your version of lockdown efficacy. So I would restore the page with broader view on lockdowns, that was replaced by you with a redirect to your "Efficacy of lockdow" article. I would recommend to keep both articles "Lockdown" and "Efficacy of lockdown" and I would remove also the rest of my contributions to "Efficacy of lockdown". --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 06:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You originally moved COVID-19/Efficacy of lockdown to COVID-19/Lockdown, which I undid; you have now expanded COVID-19/Lockdown with your own material. I do not have the energy to properly review the page that you have expanded, but just from a quick glance, the first sentence is wrong: "This learning resource is about the efficacy of lockdown"; the broader subject of that page is now lockdowns and not just their efficacy. On another note, you have "How can early efforts of risk awareness and risk literacy prevent a lockdown and its consequences for society and economy?", for which I would ask, what reliable sources support the idea that risk literacy efforts help prevent lockdowns? Since, that seems pretty implausible to me, so I wonder what reliable sources support that notion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)