Also, the average facebook addicted Trumper is only going to read the bold font headline which is a complete lie.
1. It's not anywhere NEAR a "landmark" study. Even the authors would agree, fully.
2. The bold misinfomative text does not contain any detail or context or discussion of the SEVERE limitations of the study.
investigator 1 wrote:
Also, the average facebook addicted Trumper is only going to read the bold font headline which is a complete lie.
1. It's not anywhere NEAR a "landmark" study. Even the authors would agree, fully.
2. The bold misinfomative text does not contain any detail or context or discussion of the SEVERE limitations of the study.
Do all the “we’re SCIENTISTS(TM) and we spayed a mist bottle into a mask and woweezowee it stopped all the mist” studies get a full-throated note of SEVERE limitations in typical MSM?
investigator 1 wrote:
Also, the average facebook addicted Trumper is only going to read the bold font headline which is a complete lie.
1. It's not anywhere NEAR a "landmark" study. Even the authors would agree, fully.
2. The bold misinfomative text does not contain any detail or context or discussion of the SEVERE limitations of the study.
Lol. Just take the "L".
It's far and away the most rigorous study on masks and Covid to date.
If there's anything that all mask studies agree upon, pre- and post- Covid: masks are poor inhibitors of viral spread, and excellent collectors of bacteria.
Man Overboard wrote:
real info wrote:
A former CDC director's take:
*probably*
*despite the reported results*
Real vigorous science there.
Read Frieden's response, the whole thing, and you'll see why this study proves little or nothing:
Perhaps the most important limitation of this study was the use of antibody tests to diagnose COVID-19. Of COVID-19 diagnoses in this study, 84% (80 of 95) were made by antibody testing. The accuracy of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests varies widely (7). Although an internal validation study of the assay used in DANMASK-19 estimated a specificity of 99.5%, the manufacturer reported ... a specificity of 97.5% (CI, 91.3% to 99.3). If test specificity was 98.5% and the 1.5% (1 − specificity) chance of a false-positive result was due to random laboratory variation, Bayes' law implies that all of the antibody-positive results in both intervention and control groups could have been false positives.
"Our test is 99% accurate, and we found that 1% of people in both groups had Covid" has obvious problems.
Analysis from Taleb is unkind...
Allen53 wrote:
BREAKING: The long-awaited Danish RCT on mask effectiveness was published today. First ever randomized controlled trial for masks in the general population. (6 K participants, some 5 K completed the study).
RESULT: "The difference observed was not statistically significant."
“No statistically significant difference” between mask wearers and non-mask wearers. In line with the science pre-2020. Strange how that works.
IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, AGAIN: Masks don't work.
This is the >15th RCT = same result
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
The reason masks don't work has nothing to do with if they block "particles of covid snot" or not. It's something on a greater economic level (and not economics in financial terms - but economics at it's root which is all about incentives).
The facts are hard to get around. The US has been in a state of mask delirium for 6 months now and yet it hasn't really done anything. Before people want to point at states like Florida being to blame, covid cases in almost every state have experienced large growth at some point in time. When you look into those states it's easy to blame "rural" populations for those hikes. After all, nothing more "educated" "woke" urbanites like to do rather than rail on "dumb country hicks" for all of Americas problems. Of course in reality that's nonsense - the basic population of rural areas just isn't enough to drive massive hikes in covid cases and neither are the lifestyles. Case in point where I live, Oregon, and the county that is driving all covid case growth is Multnomah where arguably the most "woke", "liberal" and "self-righteous" city in America, Portland sits smack in the middle of. People here wear masks driving solo in cars and can be jogging in the middle of a massive park by themselves in the pouring rain and will still wear a mask, apparently fearful of a gang of covid particles jumping them from behind and forcing their way up their noses and down their throats. Sensible or simply peer-pressured sheep mentality? That's up to you.
But irrespective, cases are on the rise here and how can this possibly be? Simple economics and human psychology (the real reason masks don't work). As humans we inherently seek to find equity and balance in everything we do. We have been doing it since childhood - brother or sister gets a slightly larger slice of pie - the next time around I'm getting the bigger piece. Do an overtime hour Monday and you won't get that off your mind until you do an hour less someday later in the week and make that scenario equitable. Sitting here we would love to believe that this isn't the case and we could never act so immaturely but the honest truth is we do and it manifests in so many forms other than just obvious things like slices of pie and overtime hours.
So back to masks. The very people that wear masks in ridiculous places with basically zero scientific chance of catching or spreading covid (like driving solo in a car - it is 100%, unequivocally IMPOSSIBLE to catch or spread covid driving solo in your car, ever) are the ones that subconsciously take liberties in other far more dangerous situations - such as larger family gatherings, or church, or their book club, or eating at a restaurant even with a token 6 feet between tables. "Yeah I know that we shouldn't have all the grandkids over for thanksgiving but I'm so careful wearing my mask EVERYWHERE it should be fine". "I guess eating at a restaurant with an outdoor tent (these are mind-numbingly hilarious btw) is fine because I wear my mask when I run at the park, right?"
Bottom line, it isn't the mask that is the issue it's misuse of the mask driven by an alarming and befuddling lack of information. What information is leading people to wear masks alone in their cars? What information is leading people to wear masks out while running or walking outside with more than ample amount of space around that makes it almost scientifically impossible to either transmit or contract covid? There isn't any - they are all arbitrary measures that we think are making us more safe but are creating conditions that do the opposite. And the numbers prove this.
rando from fillly wrote:
A Scientist wrote:
Its unconvincing even if statistically valid. Things can be statistically valid but of no practical informative value and I think that's where we are here.
They need to do the study during a time when there is more than a trivial chance of being infected. And then the other issues such as mask (non)use at home (with possibly asymptomatics). How would or did they control for exposure during non masked hours at home to asymptomatics...people who never developed disease yet were infectious? I have a college age kid. He knows multiple people who tested positive but had no symptoms and would not have been tested except it was mandatory.
If the study was otherwise airtight, maybe it would be more persuasive but as is, I found it of little utility.
Having said that, I completely appreciate that mask effectiveness is a very difficult thing to study.
So the several paragraphs I wrote in my last post where I defined and discussed the "power" of studies was to address your initial critique that the case positivity rate was too low to show an effect. As I said, the authors ANTICIPATED a low positivity rate when planning the study. With a low positivity rate, it IS much harder to demonstrate an effect (or lack thereof). You can do it, but you need A LOT MORE participants. They planned for this, and recruited enough participants so that the study would have statistical power.
Put another way, it would be much easier, as you said, to demonstrate an effect (or lack thereof) if the positivity rate had been higher. But a low positivity rate doesn't make it impossible - it just means you just have to recruit a lot of participants to demonstrate an effect.
As to your other point, they don't need to control for unmasked time at home. That's the whole point of a randomized controlled trial. It takes place in the real world. In the real world, people are not wearing masks in their own houses.
You cant just say the study is "unconvincing" or "of little utility" because your gut tells you you don't like it. Your statistical critique is invalid. The study has limitations (the biggest being that it doesnt say anything about masks preventing the spread to others), but it IS solid.
Sorry but I feel I have to do this. Its for your own good.
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1331639626101104642?s=20