I'm sure there's some good macroeconomists that get paid bags of money to be on the right side of the fence. They would not be dispensing their predictions for free.
Week 02 2017 France and neighbors had mortality of around 12 standard deviations above the baseline. I think number of standard deviations are a bad measure when the data is so chaotic, especially since the standard deviation can vary strongly from year to year and from country to country. Lets say that one country had a few lucky years with few abnormalizes, while another country faces catastrophes regularly. Then a minor catastrophe in the first country will look way worse than in the second.
Conditions included open-label drug use, without a placebo control or randomization. In lieu of a placebo control group, for comparison the control(s) consisted of published SOC patient results that were not administered the dual-histamine receptor blockade from the USA, United Kingdom, and China.
I think further placebo controlled double blind study is warranted before any conclusions can be drawn that this treatment is effective.
This could be data dredging since it seems they may have looked at lots of dimensions and picked the one that correlated. It doesn’t make sense to me the effect of air pollution would be so acute and at such low levels:
The effects are present in and out of the home, at levels well below Ambient Air Pollution Standards
Where in the study did it cite 8.2 years as a break even point?
By comparing to a gas car, you would need to calculate the CO2 cost of manufacturing an internal combustion engine, fuel pump, transmission, catalytic converter, etc
I think the headline you posted is quite misleading.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/edward...