[burger]

They've quietly updated the Santa Clara preprint. Unsurprisingly, the revised estimates are much less headline-grabbing:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/spence_jeffrey_/status/1256008621017554944?s=20[/tweet]

Strangely, the updated preprint still does not address the fact that there were "rogue" recruitment methods that may have influenced the participation pool beyond the parameters envisioned.

Of course they didn't mention the recruitment--admitting that the sampling was biased would be tantamount to admitting that the results are crap, which is the case.

I haven't looked at the new preprint, but that twitter thread strongly implies that, ignoring the sampling issue, their confidence intervals are too conservative.  Without going into details, that sort of mistake is common in this type of analysis.

[burger]

They've quietly updated the Santa Clara preprint. Unsurprisingly, the revised estimates are much less headline-grabbing:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/spence_jeffrey_/status/1256008621017554944?s=20[/tweet]

Strangely, the updated preprint still does not address the fact that there were "rogue" recruitment methods that may have influenced the participation pool beyond the parameters envisioned.

Of course they didn't mention the recruitment--admitting that the sampling was biased would be tantamount to admitting that the results are crap, which is the case.

I haven't looked at the new preprint, but that twitter thread strongly implies that, ignoring the sampling issue, their confidence intervals are too conservative.  Without going into details, that sort of mistake is common in this type of analysis.