6/n Now, this is at face value implausible. The authors have picked out masks as an intervention, but the reality here is that there was NO SINGLE INTERVENTION that you could easily point to at any moment in time
-
Show this thread
-
7/n In New York, in the same week that the governor signed a mask law, there were at least 2 other laws implemented regarding COVID-19, and many changes in policy as well It's not as simple as a single intervention!
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
8/n Moreover, the authors have cherry-picked 3 specific places that appear to support their argument This is obviously bad science - what about the rest of the world?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
9/n What about Australia, where we've never had mask laws (and most people don't wear masks)?pic.twitter.com/CfulD3MWkq
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
10/n Or South Korea, where masks have always been a major part of the pandemic response? Both of these are direct counter-examples to the arguments made in the piece, but are excludedpic.twitter.com/ESNAGvHb4C
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
11/n There are dozens more such examples. While in some countries masking was temporally related to declines in case numbers, this is by no means true of every place in the world
1 reply 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
12/n So the authors have cherry-picked their interventions, cherry-picked their locations, and as others have identified done quite a few other questionable things as well It is ~very~ frustrating to see
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
13/n Especially since I am not against masks! The point here is not that masks do or do not work, it is that this paper provides absolutely no evidence either way and is largely useless at determining cause and effect
3 replies 4 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
The most egregious thing is even a passing understanding of epidemics or statistical approaches to estimating effects would have shown a) better ways to analyze this and b) they didn't have the necessary data! Completely ignorant blog masquerading as a paper.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jon_y_huang @GidMK
There is a paper that does a much more thorough job with much more data, but has been largely ignored thus farhttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v2 …
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
I'll have a read!
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @jon_y_huang
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I have access to the source data, so can do any follow-up analyses you think might be helpful or needed.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jeremyphoward @jon_y_huang
My first thought - Worldometers doesn't (AFAIK) sense-check or really clean their data, so I'm worried about the quality. I've personally seen poorly sourced data that they've included before
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.