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
Here's what happened when I posted our latest @spectator article to Facebook - I'm aware this is happening to others - what has happened to academic freedom and freedom of speech? There is nothing in this article that is 'false'pic.twitter.com/8Kdmw38ICC
For starters, it was not a "landmark study". It was severely underpowered. Early July @NoahHaber correctly predicted what the results would be. Bad study designs should not be presented as state-of-the-art or above previous known evidence.https://twitter.com/NoahHaber/status/1280206598456004609 …
From the paper itself: "Limitations: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others."
And we have strong evidence that masks decrease disease transmission to others. We know the causal mechanism behind virus spread by droplets/aerosols and how masks interfere. Repeated lab experiments quantified this effect for many types of masks, that's why they are recommended.
Critique the study then! The issue here, however, is social media platforms censoring stories about it because they don't like the political implications.
And if anyone thinks this sort of censorship is an appropriate role for social media platforms to play, get back to me when Twitter attaches a similar flag onto the @IHME_UW mask model in @NatureMedicine, which has far more severe flaws and is built entirely upon a stats error.
It's the only RCT mask study specifically for COVID which *does* make it a landmark. It agrees with a hundred years of prior research that community masking isn't helpful. Where are all the RCT studies showing masks working? Why are cases exploding in mask-wearing countries?
We know the causal mechanisms and we have lab experiments. We do not need a poorly constructed RCT with inconclusive results when much better evidence is available. An RCT for mask wearing is very hard to design and monitor, fortunately it is not needed.https://twitter.com/ThomasVConti/status/1329873400123285506 …
So why then fact checkers don't check pro mask? Mask mandates are based on assumptions and poor science.
Poor from an acamdeic. I'm a PhD student and even realise when a study simply isn't designed to demonstrate what you want to see demonstrated, doesn't mean it's poor. This is valid research with typical problems with participant control. You are reader bias, not logical
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
