This is total BS. The study DOES NOT show masks have no significant effect. It tells you: "wearing a mask in your garden (but not a home) will not prevent you from catching COVID at home." Statistically, the study is junk science. It wasn't easy to publish because of the flaw. https://twitter.com/carlheneghan/status/1329335683568300036 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Nassim Nicholas Taleb Retweeted
Actually Heneghan DID post false information: the study DO NOT make that claim. I am very surprised that someone can be a professor of "evidence b" & be ignorant basic statistical methodolody plus have a reading comprehension problem.
#FooledbyRandomness https://twitter.com/carlheneghan/status/1329861848573861888?s=20 …Nassim Nicholas Taleb added,
This Tweet is unavailable.20 replies 50 retweets 414 likesShow this thread -
Nassim Nicholas Taleb Retweeted
See for yourself:
@carlHeneghan, "evidence based prof", is SHAMELESSLY misrepresenting the paper, which explicitly claims it has no result. (Aside from severe flaws in the paper itself). https://twitter.com/J_Bloodworth/status/1329877529130393604?s=20 …Nassim Nicholas Taleb added,
This Tweet is unavailable.12 replies 33 retweets 337 likesShow this thread -
I agree the authors (unlike the propagandists) hedged their claims. So, aside from the fact that infections tend to happen at home, here is my junk science accusation: Can an infection rate of ~2% be compatible w/properties below? WHO IS THE STATISTICAN WHO APPROVED THIS CRAP?pic.twitter.com/Qr6vUMANZs
9 replies 12 retweets 128 likesShow this thread
Health Nerd Retweeted Health Nerd
No. I used a simple correction to look at likely true incidence and it was fairly substantially reducedhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1329196468142444544?s=19 …
Health Nerd added,
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.