Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
1) People suck at presenting results form a scientific study.
120
2,120
SBF
@SBF_FTX
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
SBF
@SBF_FTX
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
SBF
@SBF_FTX
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
Ed Umansky 🇺🇦
@nopantski
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
Absolute % change in COVID risk seems misleading for what this study is evaluating. Masks *did* have a large impact relative to the increased COVID risk at school, cutting the increase by 50%+. The reason the absolute change was so small is the % is so small to begin with: ~0.04%
1
4
Ed Umansky 🇺🇦
@nopantski
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
Oh I totally agree it matters! But it matters as a matter of policy context, not really this study in particular. The study does suggest masks in school work and have a large effect. Whether the underlying problem is even big enough to be worth the effort is a separate question
2
SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@nopantski
I disagree that it shows they have a large effect. It shows they have a large effect *relative to the baserate*, but the baserate is really low, so I think it's actually a small effect.
1
1
Show replies