Sorry to do this to you Jerome.
1. The "study" was observational and retrospective.
2. The*total* sample size was 314, including 154 case patients and 160 control participants. As of today there have been 8.3 million infected.
154 is not representative of 8.3 million.
1. The "study" was observational and retrospective.
2. The*total* sample size was 314, including 154 case patients and 160 control participants. As of today there have been 8.3 million infected.
154 is not representative of 8.3 million.
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1318972724207898624
Continued...
3. 71% of case patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth or other mask face coverings when in public. This is verbatim from the report. There's no statistical difference between mask use between these two groups
3. 71% of case patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth or other mask face coverings when in public. This is verbatim from the report. There's no statistical difference between mask use between these two groups
Continued...
4. More interesting, 42% of case patients reported close contact with an infected person compared to 14% of control participants, statistically significant p-value (p less than 0.01)
4. More interesting, 42% of case patients reported close contact with an infected person compared to 14% of control participants, statistically significant p-value (p less than 0.01)
5. Approximately half of participants, all participants went outside, shopped and visited others inside a home.
6. Then the study excluded all participants that had close contact with an infected person. Which means the study excluded 42% of the 154 that were infected and only 14% of those who weren't infected.
Continued..
And then through the magical statistics arrived at the utterly magical conclusion that those who were infected were more likely to have at a restaurant compared to those who were not infected
And then through the magical statistics arrived at the utterly magical conclusion that those who were infected were more likely to have at a restaurant compared to those who were not infected
Well, you excluded almost 50% of the infected and less than 20% of the non-infected by that subgroup analysis.
You compared 89 case patients to 136 control participants and lost the 1:2 case control ratio originally required for the study.
You compared 89 case patients to 136 control participants and lost the 1:2 case control ratio originally required for the study.
Of course you were going to find the people who were infected had done something to get infected besides being in close contact with a close relative, because you excluded those.
That's how infections spread. You get infected from someone. That's not surprising.
That's how infections spread. You get infected from someone. That's not surprising.
Coming back to the mask use: 71 and 74% of cases and controls respectively always used masks. By any stretch of logic it wasn't the masks that protected people from getting infection. The people who got infected, at least 42% had a close contact.
Which means the masks did not help these 42% prevent infection reliably. The real difference between the two groups was the close contacts. You don't have to be a scientist to know that.
In the subgroup analysis, more people ended up in the control group versus the case group because of the exclusion of close contacts. People not infected were of course less likely to have done stuff to get them infected
But wearing masks was not one of them.
I'm done
-fin
But wearing masks was not one of them.
I'm done
-fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
