3 ms·
I don't read that many studies (I'm envious you can do that ;) as part of my (science) job, but as far as I read on airborne transmission, most of the "evidence
by lbeltrame 6y ago
I don't read that many studies (I'm envious you can do that ;) as part of my (science) job, but as far as I read on airborne transmission, most of the "evidence" presented is actually modeling, or some IMO questionable studies, like the one - was it Lancet, or NEJM? I don't remember - about potential airborne transmission in a hospital setting. I was left with an "and then?" thought after I finished reading.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> most of the "evidence" presented is actually modeling If the model evidence-based, falsifiable, and tested, applying modeling to a set of conditions is a way of deriving evidence-based conclusions about the likely outcome of those conditions.
- beagle3 6y ago> deriving evidence-based conclusions No, it's a way to derive evidence based hypotheses. A model that does not include a confounding variable (of which there are many) cannot give any conclusion about that variable - at most a hypotheses. I've spent some time looking at the models, all of them fail - some spectacularly so (those that inform policy much more so, unfortunately). To the point of being useless, I might say, because their stated assumptions usually apply almost everywhere, but their prediction (and back testing results) match only a small sample (e.g. a few specific countries or cities).