Conversation

1) People suck at presenting results form a scientific study.
120
2,120
3) First, the highlight is that mask mandates decreased COVID in schools, P<0.001. Which, sure, it would be pretty weird if they didn't decrease COVID *at all*. But--everything's a tradeoff. How much impact do they have?
3
215
4) Well, there's not much discussion of that! Because the core focus is that there's a *statistically significant* result, rather than how *important* that result is. That's stupid. The more important question is how large the effect is, not how large the study was!
8
373
5) In this case, it seems like the mandates decreased COVID in schools by ~20 cases per 100,000 children per week. That's ~0.02%/week, or ~1%/year. Would you rather: a) wear a mask for 100 years b) get COVID once I'll let you judge how the benefits compare to the costs.
Image
21
572
Replying to
7) After controlling for "age, race and ethnicity, pediatric COVID-19 vaccination rate, COVID-19 community transmission, population density, social vulnerability index score, COVID-19 community vulnerability index score, percentage uninsured, and percentage living in poverty":
5
142
8) "school mask requirements remained associated with lower daily case rates of pediatric COVID-19 (β = −1.31; 95% confidence interval = −1.51 to −1.11) (p<0.001)." Without controlling, it's ~1%/year. After controlling, it's... P<0.001.
12
160
9) As far as I can tell, they don't actually say how large the effect was after controlling for confounding variables. They just clarify that it's still statistically significant--it could be massive, or it could be essentially 0. They don't report it!
16
259
10) Come on, guys. *Anything* is statistically significant if your study has enough participants. What matters is how large the effect is.
71
719
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show