Here's the NYT article. There are many thorny issues here: and it goes beyond this administrations many obvious failures, and as we move forward, it's absolutely imperative that we do not fall into easy answers on what happened, and what needs to happen.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-masks.html …
-
-
Show this thread
-
Ah, the Danish mask study is out. Lots of people who don't want to read it will try to make a mountain out of it but, as I wrote, it doesn't and cannot test source control—the reason for masks—and it had problems with both statistical power and compliance.https://twitter.com/NoahHaber/status/1329079700988129282 …
Show this thread -
But taken at face value, it would a great argument for increasing the quality of our own masks and for universal masking. (Because it would say cloth masks with poor compliance aren't enough to protect the wearer). Unfortunately, as authors note, too underpowered for conclusion.pic.twitter.com/ITbAJZ93ym
Show this thread -
Oh, man, it's going this now, no? No no having a confidence interval that large doesn't show "mask usage may increase the likelihood of infection." It says the study was statistically underpowered so the measurements couldn't be narrowly pinpointed. It's a CONFIDENCE INTERVAL.pic.twitter.com/N8vxKz2ABH
Show this thread -
And seriously, the reporting on this is, predictably terrible. This below is the NYT. Why this weird "both sides" framing? No, it's not just the critics that are noting these limitations. The study itself is well-written and IT'S THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES NOTING THESE LIMITATIONS.pic.twitter.com/UfAIDDngDm
Show this thread -
Look, the Danish study is weak and statistically underpowered. Too short, only measures impact of "recommending" rather than wearing masks, testing method has a false positive issue plus not measuring source-control. Okay, though. This is described in the paper. Not much to see.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Your article is undermined by your statement that there are "few downsides to a simple act of respiratory etiquette." The downsides are less than the cost of people being infected and dying of COVID, but masks have many downsides - ignoring them is wrong
-
@rabbitulane like what? Got reputable links to support what you say? Thanks in advance for those. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The first chapter of any evidence-based textbook usually asks: "so, why don't we have any RCTs on orthopedic casts for broken bones? For parachutes?" Besides that, masks are cheap and non-invasive despite a lack of RCT data. Why hesitate to suggest them?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
looking at the mostly masked crowded celebrations in the streets, don't they seem to validate earlier concerns about masks encouraging recklessness?
-
If you think it a little bit not. You would need the counterfactual of knowing if there would a lower amount of celebrations in a world without masking... There are other ways to explore this situation but that particular anecdote wouldn't really work for it.
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.