Reason that past clinical studies, focusing on health-care worker outcomes, are not the best indicator is that masks for *source-control* is not an individual level variable. It's like asking if filters on car exhausts lower air pollution by measuring the air ... inside each car.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @boriquagato
Not sure why you're dismissing lab studies because measuring the filter on that exhaust is one good way to figure out what's going on. But okay, this virus is less well understood than pollution. Look at SARS is best we can do probably.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322931/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @boriquagato
Strikingly from that study, there is a dose-response effect for the significant protection from masks. Dose-response is a pretty big signal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322931/ …pic.twitter.com/Zp9sfzzQ75
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @boriquagato
How do you randomize something you can't measure at the individual level? It's a population level outcome. But we study many things without randomization. I think lab + natural experiment papers (just starting to come out) will be the best level of evidence for this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
(Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of randomization when we can. I'd give out a good chunk of scientific grants randomly if I could. Randomization is amazing and powerful. But population level measures/history etc. cannot be randomized, so lab+natural experiment it is).
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.