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
-
-
So it's 1.8-0.2 = 1.6% for masks and 2.1-0.4 = 1.7% for non-masks, corrected that becomes 1.34% and 1.46%, add back in the PCR (for whom spec is ~100%) and you get 1.54% and 2.06%
-
Ugh, just realized it should be 2.1-0.6 for the non-masks, which changes the numbers again to 1.54% vs 1.82%. Same general problem, an estimated 1.68% infected in the study
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
My take of that table is that the relevance of seroconversion is unclear and if you count PCR-positive & health care diagnosed cases, it’s [only] 5 vs. 15 events, health care only => 5 vs. 10. Does it decrease symptomatic disease? I don’t really care (or know) if I seroconvert…
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.