General Discussion

a good portion of it and I didn't' see anything concrete there to substantiate the claim. The only fact that can be said with raw honesty is that it COULD have contributed. The study is based on what could also as easily be called coincidental timing. That is what difference-in-differences models are. While there is no real doubt that it could, to put a number on it and say that caused it is irresponsible and possibly very misleading.
The entire covid thing was politicized, and it is still being politicized now. This is the biggest travesty of all. In the way a virus pattern runs and the fast pace at which it changes, contributing these effects to any single action is is extremely difficult to say the least. It's no different than saying "People who took ivermectin felt better sooner because of it". None of that is based on measurable fact, it is based on assumption. This study isn't much different.
I don't mean to be contrary, but I insist on skepticism. I don't trust anyone anymore in this realm because almost all of them have lied to me in one way or another.