I can’t stand these kind of statistical studies that estimate what would have been because they are not proveable and they depend so much on trusting the researchers themselves. From what I understand of the the study model (I’m from medicine, not economics), I didn’t see anything that seems glaringly wrong, it if you have more expertise, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
I do know that the question being answered isn’t the right one however. It should be prevented deaths not prevented infections (which are inevitable), and they should be compared to the same evaluation of the deaths from shutdown.
They also javent published this yet, but released it early by their own admission which means that Nature can retract it later without damaging its reputation which makes me suspicious in light of previous events. And why release it early - are they in the business of marketing or science?