2/n Study is here, as ever have a read. A very simple, nicely done RCT comparing the advice to wear masks with no such advice in Denmark:https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/n So, first point. This study says NOTHING about whether mask mandates are good public health policy Indeed, the authors themselves point this out in the discussionpic.twitter.com/jSa5O6VZXe
Show this thread -
4/n In fact, we already knew that telling people to wear masks (and providing them with masks) is a relatively ineffective way to stop them from getting a respiratory disease. Universal masking is more complex than that
Show this thread -
5/n The study DOESN'T show that masks are ineffective at preventing infection for the person wearing them I know it sounds weird, but it's true!
Show this thread -
6/n See, the authors powered their study (i.e. recruited participants) assuming that masks decreased your risk of infection by 50%, which is quite a lot!pic.twitter.com/WcBowCIJ7u
Show this thread -
7/n What the study actually shows is that advising someone to wear a mask doesn't reduce their risk of COVID-19 by ~50% or more~, but the results don't exclude smaller benefits
Show this thread -
8/n A reduction in risk of infection of 20% would be a bit meaningless to the individual but HUGE at a population level, so this is not a minor point
Show this thread -
9/n The study also DOESN'T show that WEARING A MASK is ineffective. It showed that PROVIDING MASKS AND TELLING PEOPLE TO WEAR THEM was ineffective ON TOP OF SOCIAL DISTANCING
Show this thread -
10/n As the authors note, compliance was pretty poor. Lots of people were told to wear masks, but didn't Hard to say what this means for an individual wearing a mask 24/7pic.twitter.com/2vnN12EpVI
Show this thread -
11/n Moreover, there was a lot of social distancing already going on in Denmark at the time - this means that we can't really say that MASKS are ineffective but rather than masks didn't reduce infection numbers significantly on top of social distancingpic.twitter.com/ciSXYlyR3n
Show this thread -
12/n Again, this is not a minor point - masks may indeed not reduce infection numbers much during lockdown, but that doesn't say a lot about their effectiveness at other times
Show this thread -
13/n Ok, a technical addition that is nevertheless important. The authors do not report correcting their result for the test sensitivity and specificity of their serology test
Show this thread -
14/n Serology tests are used to find antibodies, and they are (as all tests are) imperfect So, usually we correct for the imperfections to get a better estimate of the true number of people with antibodies
Show this thread -
15/n In this case, the study found that 1.8% of people in the mask group had antibodies, compared to 2.1% of people in the non-mask group But those are just the RAW figurespic.twitter.com/NtiZuV9Uml
Show this thread -
16/n If we use the Rogen-Gladen estimator, which is a pretty standard correction for test characteristics, we see instead that 1.59% and 1.95% of people in masks/no masks were probably infected, respectivelypic.twitter.com/d4rPZ5kJVw
Show this thread -
17/n This sounds like a minor point, but it actually isn't - if only 1.59%/1.95% of people were infected, it means that the study was underpowered for its main analysis, and thus we can't conclude much from the results
Show this thread -
18/n Sorry, small correction - I used the final totals of 1.8% and 2.1% not the actual antibody numbers of 1.6% and 1.7% in that calculation. If you apply the correction properly, you get 1.56% masks and 2.09% non-masks
Show this thread -
19/n For some context, to find a difference this small, the study would've needed to recruit about 24,000 people, or 12,000 in each group, which is about 4x as big
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.