As an epidemiologist who curates an account about absolute and relative risk @justsaysrisks, I do indeed understand the intricacies here. The hilarity comes mostly from you misrepresenting relative risk as some kind of evil plothttps://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1340068351142490113 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @GidMK @justsaysrisks
Instead of saying the difference between 2.1 and 1.8 is 14% it could equally be said (by inverting the statistical manipulation) that the difference between 97.9 and 98.2 is 0.306...% ...but pro maskers wouldn't do that because it doesn't fit their agenda.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deanthespleen @justsaysrisks
Pray tell, what is my agenda?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @justsaysrisks
Never said anything about you or your agenda. What do you have to say about the point of reversing the statistical manipulation? It's just as valid as the one you defend.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deanthespleen @justsaysrisks
It is not. The primary outcome of the study was not "did not get COVID-19", it was infection rates between the groups. Reversing the statistics is ignoring the entire purpose of the research
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @justsaysrisks
But isn't it the exact same information? Just that instead of saying mask wearers had 14% less people infected than no mask wearers, we can say mask wearers had 0.306% more people who did not get infected than those who did not wear masks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @deanthespleen @justsaysrisks
You can, but it's a logically flawed transformation
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @deanthespleen @justsaysrisks
Because you're ignoring the purpose of the research. You're looking at whether masks reduce your relative rate of non-infection, which is a weird double-negative thing to do
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @justsaysrisks
It is weird, I agree, and I wouldn't like to represent the data in such a way. However, my point is is that it is statistically viable to do so and is simply the other side of the coin. In my view, what you view As proper is weird and misleading, but the original 0.3% is not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'd suggest you read the pinned tweet of @justsaysrisks to see my opinion on relative and absolute risk, rather than simply assuming what my intent may be
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @justsaysrisks
I don't think I've assumed anything but I apologise if I have. I will read your article.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.