Blog · corpus.blog/blogs/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/posts
Andrew Gelman
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
2020
Be careful when estimating years of life lost: quick-and-dirty estimates of attributable risk are, well, quick and dirty.original ↗
25 May 2020
25 May 2020
24 May 2020
New report on coronavirus trends: “the epidemic is not under control in much of the US . . . factors modulating transmission such as rapid testing, contact tracing and behavioural precautions are crucial to offset the rise of transmission associated with loosening of social distancing . . .”original ↗
22 May 2020
OK, here’s a hierarchical Bayesian analysis for the Santa Clara study (and other prevalence studies in the presence of uncertainty in the specificity and sensitivity of the test)original ↗
20 May 2020
19 May 2020
Hey, I think something’s wrong with this graph! Free copy of Regression and Other Stories to the first commenter who comes up with a plausible innocent explanation of this one.original ↗
19 May 2020
No, average statistical power is not as high as you think: Tracing a statistical error as it spreads through the literatureoriginal ↗
18 May 2020
18 May 2020
Are informative priors “[in]compatible with standards of research integrity”? Click to find out!!original ↗
17 May 2020
If the outbreak ended, does that mean the interventions worked? (Jon Zelner talk tomorrow)original ↗
14 May 2020
Here’s what academic social, behavioral, and economic scientists should be working on right now.original ↗
13 May 2020
13 May 2020
2 perspectives on the relevance of social science to our current predicament: (1) social scientists should back off, or (2) social science has a lot to offeroriginal ↗
12 May 2020
11 May 2020
Coronavirus Grab Bag: deaths vs qalys, safety vs safety theater, ‘all in this together’, and more.original ↗
10 May 2020
9 May 2020
University of Washington biostatistician unhappy with ever-changing University of Washington coronavirus projectionsoriginal ↗
5 May 2020
5 May 2020
Bayesian analysis of Santa Clara study: Run it yourself in Google Collab, play around with the model, etc!original ↗
4 May 2020
2 May 2020
Simple Bayesian analysis inference of coronavirus infection rate from the Stanford study in Santa Clara countyoriginal ↗
1 May 2020
Hey, you. Yeah, you! Stop what you’re doing RIGHT NOW and read this Stigler article on the history of robust statisticsoriginal ↗
1 May 2020
“Then the flaming sheet, with the whirr of a liberated phoenix, would fly up the chimney to join the stars.”original ↗
1 May 2020
Updated Imperial College coronavirus model, including estimated effects on transmissibility of lockdown, social distancing, etc.original ↗
30 Apr 2020
Resolving the cathedral/bazaar problem in coronavirus research (and science more generally): Could we follow the model of genetics research (as suggested by some psychology researchers)?original ↗
30 Apr 2020
29 Apr 2020
27 Apr 2020
Tracking R of COVID-19 & assessing public interventions; also some general thoughts on scienceoriginal ↗
27 Apr 2020
27 Apr 2020
25 Apr 2020
24 Apr 2020
24 Apr 2020
“I don’t want ‘crowd peer review’ or whatever you want to call it,” he said. “It’s just too burdensome and I’d rather have a more formal peer review process.”original ↗
23 Apr 2020
Information or Misinformation During a Pandemic: Comparing the effects of following Nassim Taleb, Richard Epstein, or Cass Sunstein on twitter.original ↗
23 Apr 2020
23 Apr 2020
22 Apr 2020
22 Apr 2020
21 Apr 2020
“The Evidence and Tradeoffs for a ‘Stay-at-Home’ Pandemic Response: A multidisciplinary review examining the medical, psychological, economic and political impact of ‘Stay-at-Home’ implementation in America”original ↗
18 Apr 2020
17 Apr 2020
16 Apr 2020
16 Apr 2020
16 Apr 2020
“America is used to blaming individuals for systemic problems. Let’s try to avoid that this time.”original ↗
13 Apr 2020
13 Apr 2020
Usual channels of clinical research dissemination getting somewhat clogged: What can go wrong – does.original ↗
12 Apr 2020
12 Apr 2020
11 Apr 2020
Given that 30% of Americans believe in astrology, it’s no surprise that some nontrivial percentage of influential American psychology professors are going to have the sort of attitude toward scientific theory and evidence that would lead them to have strong belief in weak theories supported by no good evidence.original ↗
11 Apr 2020