“the CDC came up with its no-masks policy years ago, long before there was any supply shortage.” Some evidence that the CDC, like so many others, are not strategically misleading us. It’s more likely that they are deeply confused, which is worse.https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @diviacaroline
When I suspected that surgeon general and CDC were misinforming the public for reasons instead of utter incompetence, Grady Booch and others got really angry at me. I still don't understand this; incompetence is much more terrifying than evidence based Machiavellianism.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @diviacaroline
Confused ≠ incompetence, tho only somewhat less terrifying. The actual studies are confusing, and a solid RCT would be unethical in the extreme. The rational response IMO is to assume (a) that masks work, so wear them and (b) that they don't work, so take all other precautions
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @BobKerns @diviacaroline
Could you please point me to the confusing studies, I only know the nonconfusing ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @diviacaroline
Did you read the article? It gave a spectrum of studies with problems from small size to results that contradicted each other and logic, and it's not hard to find them. There are observational case-control studies showing benefit, and ones not. And there's this:pic.twitter.com/Y6e2VOL1pg
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
It may seem unconfusing if you only look at one study. Taken as a whole, and with the limitations of the studies, it's confusing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BobKerns @diviacaroline
Can you please point me to the confusing studies? Did you see at least one single study that convincingly shows that masks somehow increase the risk of infection?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @diviacaroline
No, you've confused the point here! That a study showed that is not convincing, but rather, a symptom of the lack of strong and consistent evidence that they are effective. Nobody thinks they make it worse (unless you engage in risky behavior as a result, of course).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The confusion on the benefits does not extend from positive to negative infinity. But given the conflicting recommendations and results on the spectrum of ineffective to effective, it's hard to escape "confusing".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That what not what I implied at all. I just have not seen studies that demonstrate convincingly that masks don't reduce infections, and several that seem to show the opposite. So if you say it's confusing, I want to know why.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @diviacaroline
Here's where you *asked* for studies showing it increased them. You introduced it. Glad we can dispose of it! It's confusing because there are studies, like the one I cited earlier, that suggest they're ineffective. If they were *convincing*, then we wouldn't have confusion!pic.twitter.com/xnhxHlgr8u
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think anybody really thinks they have zero benefit. I am certainly NOT trying to argue that case in any event. But there are a host of questions within that space. Does your typical person wearing a mask reduce his risk of household transmission, for example?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.