4/n Essentially, to know whether glasses make you less likely to catch COVID-19, we'd need to know whether people with glasses caught the disease less than people without glasses Simple, right?pic.twitter.com/1GxB0YwOuD
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Oh, well. There goes my hope that my eyeglasses are a magic shield.
what if I had eyeglasses but refuse to wear them, for, ah, reasons?
Aside from the offensive absurdity of this article, seems likely (though ultimately redundant) that glasses-wearing, as opposed to glasses-needing, relates to SES, which in turn means less exposure. (Or not. That's why it should be a real study.)
wishful thinking sells ads and subscriptions
Another example of Brandolini's law.
My favorite part? The author literally refused to provide any demographics for that single-hospital sample. Just a placeholder for Table 1! So we can't even see how different this super-selected sample might be from the gen pop. Unreal that this is getting media play.
Yes I love the placeholders (table 2 goes here)
OK OK - but I’m still going to keep wearing my glasses.
Without reading the article, it sounds like the hypothesis was around glasses acting as a physical barrier to droplets entering the eye. Too many variables like lens size & shape, distance worn from the eye, and average surface area of eye that's exposed.
Or in my case, I seriously need my glasses adjusted but haven't been to the eye doctor because of the pandemic. They fall off my face even without wearing a mask (when I'm at home) and they are utterly useless when double-masking at work.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.