The bigger point is that RCDs only are considered the “gold standard” in a limited set of circumstances in which they are feasible. Not being able to assess a public health intervention with a RCD does not mean that we lack evidence of its efficacy.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
To reasonably exclude a 20% benefit of masks in an RCT of this kind you'd need roughly 240,000 people enrolled in a trial. Gold standard or not, that is unlikely to be feasible anywhere in the world
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Past RCTs have had mixed evidence about masking, but there isn't a great deal of evidence either way. And if you exclude all observational evidence because of 'confounding' then you really don't know much about observational research
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
With advanced degrees in epidemiology and a number of years professional experience, I would've never considered the importance of controlling for potential confounders had you not raised the issue
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lol, I'm just loving the idea that you feel the need to lecture epidemiologists about confounding, as if it is something that we have never heard of or considered before
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @Montaigne01 and
Appeal to authority, good one - I feel you’re now starting to grasp at straws for the sake of not conceding (or the need to have the last word)...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Lol, this is really quite funny. I was sarcastic because it's rather rare that people will arrogantly expound on confounding to me, but please do tell - which point did I try to make with an appeal to authority?
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.