I can at least partially handle this since the meta on strength of evidence is my wheelhouse, but @GidMK has a broader read on the vitamin D lit.
Short version: not all absences of evidence are =, decisions involve more than evidence, and the mask evidence is actually stronger.
-
-
The impact of masks isn't very amenable to causal inference at a human or population level, so the minimal evidence for masks for C19 is almost entirely due to low feasibility. But what we DO have is lots and lots of other reason to believe it works (e.g. droplet travel).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We also have some halfway decent here or there that would be hard to explain away by study design flaws alone. Compare that to vit D, which is just about the easiest thing there is to test robustly, but where we also have a lack of any kind of robust evidence.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The evidence suggesting vit-d effect is universally explainable by basic design flaws, and there is no real reason to believe it would have worked anyway. The lack of evidence for vit d is more due to there actually being no effect or theory backing it than no feasibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoahHaber @GidMK
Can you be specific about what you mean by "basic design flaws"? The vitamin D evidence is pretty diverse and includes ecological/observational data, mendelian randomization, in vitro data, and activity against other respiratory viruses.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
While (as I wrote in that blog post) none of this is all that strong, but it really doesn't seem markedly weaker than the evidence for masking.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gshotwell @GidMK
Causal inference and strength of evidence (again, this is my wheelhouse) is extremely nuanced and complex. It may not "seem" weaker, but it is, in fact, extremely weak to the point of irrelevance. Gotta stop here, sorry.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NoahHaber @GidMK
I'm wondering if any of the data in the last couple of months have changed your mind on this. There are now 14 observational studies, and one pilot RCT supporting the vitamin D thesis.https://github.com/GShotwell/vitamin_d_covid#direct-research-on-vitamin-d-and-covid …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gshotwell @NoahHaber
I'd say that Noah's original point, that all the evidence for Vit D is entirely explicable through the research being flawed in design, still holds perfectly true despite the increase in the number of studies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @NoahHaber
I assumed as much. But you're against mask mandates right? That seems wronger to me, but more consistent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @NoahHaber
Oh, I could be wrong about that. If so, why do you have different evidentiary standards for vitamin D and cloth masks?
1 reply 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.