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
-
-
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.