Interesting! Thanks for sharing. There’s something about mask use that veers into the ideological
-
-
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example, I'd been tweeting to be wary of the HCQ harms arguments from that observational Lancet study (long before it was retracted) because..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
2 replies 4 retweets 11 likes -
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
So I consider myself risk-averse when it comes to evidence and demanding of highest-quality possible with careful consideration to risks on all sides of the decision.
(And HK/Taiwan/S Korea etc. certainly have excellent infectious disease specialists and were ahead of us/WHO).
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @BillHanage
Ok yes I see. Sorry for any mischaracterization Zeynep! Yes lots of evidence, but the overly risk averse may dither until there’s an RCT even in the face of other types of high-quality evidence that should make it clear to them. We’re on the same page.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ZoeMcLaren @BillHanage
No problem. I'm just clarifying. I'm okay with risk-averse as long as it is uniformly applied because it's a defensible position (though I'd highlight harms on both sides is an important consideration when risk is both-sided). But this wasn't really that.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.