Listen, we need to be calm and rational and follow the evidence.
We need to weigh the danger to a possibly fatal virus, which kills you by slowly strangling your ability to breathe and turning your lungs to gelatine, with the fact that many HCW find masks hot.
We need to weigh the danger to a possibly fatal virus, which kills you by slowly strangling your ability to breathe and turning your lungs to gelatine, with the fact that many HCW find masks hot.
None of YOUR studies are any good because they are not randomized controlled trials, with suitable sample sizes, so we do not know masks work.
On the flip side, we know masks don't work because they were implemented in ImagineLand and cases still went up, as it said in the newspaper, thus proving my point.
Quality of evidence is only a problem for you.
Anecdotes are fine when it's me.
Anecdotes are fine when it's me.
I speak for all people and their hatred of masks.
Ignore that we told them it would be safe without.
Ignore that we told them it would be safe without.
I'll say you didn't read the study to insinuate you don't understand
If you note I missed a science study or 2 or 20, not to worry, "report will be updated as new information is received".
If you note I missed a science study or 2 or 20, not to worry, "report will be updated as new information is received".
And I still don't really get it because I get attack rate logic wrong
🙃
This thread is more or less correct, although backwards, pointing out the ridiculous pedantic argumentation we get on this topic (and others).
1. One should not listen to any of it, but should step back and ask what on earth are we debating. We are debating giving health care a few 50 cent mask to protect them, which might work (nobody debates this) so the cost/benefit is:
on one side: some fifty cent masks
on the other: people needlessly die
on the other: people needlessly die
Aside from this, providing the masks may actually show them we care.
That actually has a value. (Which might be a surprise to some.)
For a field constantly dealing with quality of life years, they know this, or should know this.
That actually has a value. (Which might be a surprise to some.)
For a field constantly dealing with quality of life years, they know this, or should know this.
2. "Quality of evidence" is just a way to throw out your studies.
Medicine has an RCT fetish they have to get over. I mean, do whatever you want in your bedroom, but out here, keep it to yourself.
Medicine has an RCT fetish they have to get over. I mean, do whatever you want in your bedroom, but out here, keep it to yourself.
Further, the real joke is most of the time they are mis-using p-tests or running analyses with arms of 2, which is too low to answer anything.
On the issue of running RCTs of masks, there are so many confounding factors to humans wearing masks to know what the effects you saw was due to ...
... BUT, and this might be a surprise, a lot of these studies might fail the _STATISTICS_ but often show on the numbers N95s working better. Of course, once you fail the statistics, however stupid, you can't really point to the numbers
... BUT remember WHO runs these studies ...
... BUT remember WHO runs these studies ...
Finally, that all got deep, so if you came this far you deserve this: 
Ceci est critical social commentary dressed up like a meme.
Or maybe not and it's just a stupid meme.
Or maybe not and it's just a stupid meme.
Final tip:
Please maintain perspective as you consider studies, arguments, and ultimately what we are doing here
Can get sucked into this "throw out your common sense" because someone is throwing p-tests at you. That's not what this (life/statistics/pandemic response) is about
Please maintain perspective as you consider studies, arguments, and ultimately what we are doing here
Can get sucked into this "throw out your common sense" because someone is throwing p-tests at you. That's not what this (life/statistics/pandemic response) is about
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
