4 ms·
From that article: > The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness of all medical procedure masks or cloths masks nor in
by peytn 6y ago
From that article:
> The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness of all medical procedure masks or cloths masks nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings.
I think complaints are justified when CDC officials turn around and do exactly what their report says not to do: interpret the findings as being representative of real-world settings. A year in and with trillions spent, our evidentiary standard should be higher.
- ceejayoz 6y agoHow, exactly, are you proposing we get the data on "real-world settings" without trying out the approach that's been lab-validated? Barring evidence in the "this might be dangerous" direction, those lab results certainly appear to support recommending people adopt the practice. Turning this sort of CYA language that's standard in medical research into a scary gotcha is exactly the sort of propaganda the anti-vax folks engage in all the time.
- peytn 6y agoI believe clinical trials are the gold-standard mechanism by which specific questions about interventions may be answered. I’m not pointing out a “scary gotcha.” I’m pointing out an omission identified in the linked work.
- ceejayoz 6y agoLab confirmation of double masking can be performed in an afternoon. A clinical trial is going to take tens of thousands of self-reporting "I wore two" people for months or longer, plus difficulties with all sorts of confounding variables. I'm very comfortable with a tentative recommendation based on the lab data for a non-dangerous intervention. If we get observational data a year from now confirming it, even better.
- peytn 6y agoThen you are more comfortable than I with unreviewed reports from government scientists a year into a declared state of emergency. That’s okay.