I've read hundreds of papers with mistakes - errors big and small - at the absolute minimum these should be corrected, but if the entire paper is flawed what else do you do?
I think this attitude often harks back to decades long past, where you had a physical journal where letters to the editor were read as much as studies themselves
But these days, letters are barely read, but studies often go viral and are seen by 100,000s. What's even the point of writing a letter if it doesn't lead to correction/retraction?
Sorry, initial tweet should read "potential" not "purpose"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, The Big Mask study has been published, and I thought rather than expound on what the results DID show (everyone's doing that), I might point out a few things that they DIDN'T show 1/n
2/n Study is here, as ever have a read. A very simple, nicely done RCT comparing the advice to wear masks with no such advice in Denmark: acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…
3/n So, first point. This study says NOTHING about whether mask mandates are good public health policy
Indeed, the authors themselves point this out in the discussion
Ok, so I've had a read of this paper (which has been all over the news) that says quite explicitly that closing schools will probably cause more years of life lost than leaving them open in a pandemic
2/n Paper is here. It's actually very simple, basically the authors took an estimate of how many days of school kids lost due to closures during COVID-19, an estimate of how much that impacts their years of life, and multiplied out
Also, massive hats off to the authors for acknowledging that the data were not sufficient to make calculations and then JUST NOT DOING IT
I agree wholeheartedly with their assessment FYI, I don't think you can reasonably calculate the IFR of COVID-19 in Australia from either of the seroprevalence studies released thus far
A lot of people are asking the question, so I think it's useful to point out that a vaccine that prevents 90% of infections would be sufficient for herd immunity in most cases
There are, of course, HUGE caveats here:
- protection must be long-lasting
- must protect against infection, not just symptoms
- vaccination rate has to be quite high
Nevertheless, if a vaccine does stop 90% of infections, and we can vaccinate 90%+ of the population, then you'd have about 80% of people immune to the disease which is well above any herd immunity threshold for COVID-19
Sigh. An interesting study, but such a ridiculous prediction. The authors estimated the relative risk of wearing a mask to not based on studies mostly conducted in healthcare workers during SARS/MERS, and then extrapolated this directly to the US
In fact, the reduction in deaths that's cited here as the main outcome is a direct result of the relative risk (0.65) that the authors found for mask-use compared to no mask-use when aggregating together studies on masks
So, they predict 500k deaths in the US by Feb 2021, but if 95% of people wear masks in public, this goes down by just under 35%
For all the absurd noise about "academic silencing" throughout the year, it's interesting to note that it hasn't appeared to have stopped anyone getting papers accepted, published, and cited hundreds of times
The Santa Clara serology study, whose authors claim at length and publicly that they have been silenced horribly, has been cited nearly 300 times!
If they're being silenced, it's not evident in the citation count. That's >1 citation a day
I mean, most of the academics who talk about silencing have done so on massive media platforms and have carried that through to enormous academic acclaim
We're all scientists here. By what possible metrics have they been silenced?