And all this ‘if properly used’ - where are the plans to train the vulnerable in the use of higher grade medical masks? Concern is often expressed over false sense of security, more often touching face etc 4/n
-
Show this thread
-
Bill Hanage Retweeted Ben Cowling
I am presuming the research cited is the Chu et al review in
@TheLancet. I’m not sure that’s the best source of evidence when it comes to mask use in the community vs healthcare because of training in the latter setting and confounders https://twitter.com/bencowling88/status/1269139370121953280?s=21 … is 5/nBill Hanage added,
Ben CowlingVerified account @bencowling88(1/16) However, I don't follow the argument that the guidance has changed because of new evidence. The evidence has been there all along. I have a few comments on the most recent review in the Lancet https://twitter.com/bencowling88/status/1269076755005861888 …Show this thread2 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @BillHanage
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
Note "false sense of security" claim in the guidance has no citations. I briefed this guidance committee on how that worry was not just without evidence, there is evidence to the contrary. Disappointed they still just hand-waved it in. Paper under review:https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1268935532396130305 …
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepHere's a preprint of a paper (I'm a co-author) where we review the "false sense of security" claim and explain why it doesn't stand to evidence at all, and why, on the contrary, universal masks would be expected to lessen stigma and heighten solidarity. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v2 … pic.twitter.com/2tDzvYGNVrShow this thread3 replies 4 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. There’s something about mask use that veers into the ideological
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BillHanage
Indeed! Lack of RCTs are cited as a reason not to mask despite other evidence, but then evidence for harms and worries is all without citations and mostly hand-waving. Then, handwashing for COVID has less RCT evidence but nobody worries about that (but, of course, let's do it!).
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
It’s definitely too nuanced for Twitter, but there is something interesting about what counts as evidence, and how to make decisions when you don’t have all the evidence you’d like. RCTs if possible are great, but they’re not the *only* source of evidence.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @BillHanage @zeynep
I think some of the issue is that most academics aren’t courageous enough to take a stand on the evidence without a gold standard RCT to back them up. The sum total of the evidence backs up
@zeynep’s points. But too many are afraid of the very small chance masks could backfire.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ZoeMcLaren @zeynep
I think you’re probably right for at least some academics. I would always prefer high quality evidence myself, but recognize it may not be available on the time scale I need
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BillHanage @ZoeMcLaren
Disagree a bit. The quality of the "for" evidence needed is related to the evidence for harms. Almost all the alleged harms were either baseless, or there was evidence to the contrary (from decades of research). We had enough "for" evidence—especially given lack of harms.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm risk-averse myself, when it comes to evidence. For example, I'd been tweeting to be wary of the HCQ harms arguments from that observational Lancet study (long before it was retracted) because.. Exactly. Not highest quality evidence, given they unblinded RCTs & found no harms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Look at this new preprint. They find, quite unsurprisingly, that masks *increase* distancing. I've been arguing this for months based on social science evidence! This is what you'd expect, not false sense of security nonsense. But all this was disregarded. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.12446.pdf …pic.twitter.com/k7f0ZiQQ4s
-
-
I don't think problems was lack of high-quality evidence—though sure, we can't have RCTs. Rather: the evidence that was there was dismissed; evidence free hand-waving was allowed for harms; and unresonable evidentiary standards were only held for masks, not for say, hygiene.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
So, I don't think people arguing masks should have been encouraged/mandated were "brave" despite lack of high-quality evidence; rather, I think the other "side" (painfully included WHO and CDC at first) acted contrary to evidence, made baseless claims and ignored actual evidence.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes - Show replies
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.