English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Riess et al (2018c) have claimed there exist seven problems in the analysespresented by Shanks et al (2018) where we argue that there is enoughuncertainty in Cepheid distances and local peculiar velocity fields to explainthe current tension in $H_0$. Here, we take each of the Riess et al (2018c)points in turn and suggest that either they do not apply or that the necessarycaveats are already made by Shanks et al (2018). We conclude that the mainpoint to be inferred from our analyses still stands which is that previousclaims by Riess et al (2018b) that Gaia parallaxes confirm their Cepheid scaleare, at best, premature in advance of further improvements in the Gaiaastrometric solution.

$H_0$ Tension: Response to Riess et al arXiv:1810.03526