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
6) But there's a second problem--it's not clear that those results are controlling for confounders. Now, the study did look at confounding variables! It's just, they first produced the chart, and *then* re-ran the numbers controlling. Or, at least, they imply so.
5
178
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
Replying to
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