Honestly I'm not sure if homemade masks is part of the answer or not. It seems to me though that it makes a whole lot of sense to protect yourself and others from droplets that can come from coughing and speaking.
-
-
Replying to @PierreOuannes @JFPuget and
You say data don't lie but the only data you've shown about Czechia is a few hundred cases over the last few days. Nobody is saying that homemade masks will completely stop the virus. It obviously won't. But if it can slow it down it's already a huge win.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @PierreOuannes @xtbot and
You didn't had these caveat when you wrote: > It was halted when he wrote his tweet. Yet that was based on even smaller data. This is not a scientific discussion, I'll stop here.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yes we are operating on little data which is recent and very hard to interpret. It doesn't mean we can't have a scientific discussion about the usefulness of masks in stopping droplets potentially loaded with virus.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PierreOuannes @xtbot and
1. Data shows the opposite of what Jeremy Howard said. 2. There is no data showing that wearing a surgical mask protects you from infection. There is data showing the opposite, see for instancehttps://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JFPuget @PierreOuannes and
I think you need to re-read that SSC piece, it offers a lot of data in support of masks.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AlvaroDeMenard @PierreOuannes and
Like this? "According to intention-to-treat, the studies unanimously found masks to be useless."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JFPuget @AlvaroDeMenard and
I am the author of the linked article. For clarification, I intended the article to claim that there is strong circumstantial evidence (though not 100% proof) that masks are useful for protecting the wearer.
4 replies 7 retweets 60 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @AlvaroDeMenard and
Awesome, I can ask you. How come you dismiss "According to intention-to-treat, the studies unanimously found masks to be useless." after explaining that "intention-to-treat" is the only unbiased way to evaluate an effect? 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JFPuget @AlvaroDeMenard and
First, because MacIntyre and Chugatai do that in their review, and they're the world experts. But also because there's no such thing as a perfect study - AFAIK there are no RCTs proving smoking causes cancer. You have to do the best you can interpreting imperfect evidence.
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes
I don't have any justification for how I went about it other than that I would feel sillier ignoring the per protocol results because of the chance of those being biased, than I would accepting the ITT results which we know are biased.
-
-
Replying to @slatestarcodex @JFPuget and
I think "ITT is gold standard" means "If you prove something with ITT, that's very strong." It doesn't mean that if you can't prove it with ITT, you have gold-standard proven it false. Since there is no gold standard evidence here, I go with the best we have, and hope.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @AlvaroDeMenard and
Here we are not assessing the effect of people wearing masks. We have to asses the effect of govt telling people to wear masks. Some people will do it right, some won't. Focusing on those who do it right is irrelevant. That's why I think ITT is the only way to go. Just sayin'
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.