2 ms·
>mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless. This is of course not true. You also neglect other forms of evidence, like natural experime
by scythe 5y ago
>mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless.
This is of course not true. You also neglect other forms of evidence, like natural experiments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877582/
Demanding RCTs or bust is basically poisoning the well. And for all your "happiness" your posts have no shortage of vitriol.
Aerosols are composed of droplets which can be caught in masks, also:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28144885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28144885
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago> Aerosols are composed of droplets This is backwards. Aerosols are smaller than droplets. You can’t be composed of something bigger than yourself. Aerosol essentially means it doesn’t fall to the ground like a saliva droplet does. — The “natural experiment” you linked is a great example of why RCTs are so important (particularly for anything you’re proposing mandating). Saying “after masking was adopted cases went down” isn’t proof because if you look at the non-mask areas, cases also went down during the period. — I’m on mobile so can’t dig up the quote but I’d really recommend reading Medical Nihilism by Stegenga. You seem to have a backwards view of evidentiary standards. That is to say, most findings are false (Ionnidis has a famous paper on this too). That’s why RCTs and the like are so incredibly important.