Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0
|
Ok quick look through the cited study and it's references and have some interesting observations. See study here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/20/e2013637118
It looks like this study makes use of data that other studies have performed which are based on a PM2.5 model that was created by through yet another study. I haven't looked into the model much, though it is open source, but I found that at least one creator of the model shows up as an author in all layers of aforementioned studies. While not unusual to see somebody participating in follow-on work, it is important to note creator's bias here.
The question becomes how accurate is the model, and is it backed up by empirical evidence. Judging by the rate of development and amount of data outputs it claims to support, I would SWAG that this model is based entirely on outside research. Meaning based on research others have done for their own purpose, reused to meet the needs here. With how all the covid-19 data repackaging and assessments have led to misinformation, we should all be aware of the potential for that here, though I am certain it is unintentional on the author's part.
The model in question:
http://spatialmodel.com/inmap/
As an engineer, I would not feel comfortable using this study as a sole source of evidence of the implied relationship. I would want to see hard data to back up the simulated findings for at least half of the steps it takes to connect them. I don't think I have seen any test data in any of the references I have access to. As such, this is an interesting mathematical exercise, but not much more.