Brave and on point defense of the Danish mask study from @VPrasadMDMPH.
Be wary of those who will censor science.https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778 …
-
-
Replying to @venkmurthy @VPrasadMDMPH
Worth noting that there's some nuance buried in the weeds of the paper. The compliance recording was not great, and if you correct for test characteristics it probably was substantially underpowered to detect the main effect
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likes -
I.e. depending on the sensitivity and specificity that you use (manufacturer's vs verification), correcting for the test characteristics of the serology tests used in the study reduces the incidence of COVID-19 to 1.4-1.7%
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Health Nerd Retweeted Per Damkier
And on the recording of compliance issue i.e.https://twitter.com/Per_Damkier/status/1329155396464996354?s=20 …
Health Nerd added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
None of this is a reason not to publish it, of course, but I do think that they are weaknesses worth considering when talking about the research
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I think it shouldn't have been published because... it's dumb. It's a mask. It covers your face, where the germs come out. We don't need a trial for this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Disagree. It is perhaps questionable to run a trial that asked a question that is unimportant (it was never likely that we would detect a 50% reduction in infections due to masks), but once you've run it publishing is the only ethical option
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.