4 ms·
I think it is a bit cheeky of them. They promoted the usage of masks and distancing in 600 villages totalling 350,000 people and observed the results (mask wear
by cfn 5y ago
I think it is a bit cheeky of them. They promoted the usage of masks and distancing in 600 villages totalling 350,000 people and observed the results (mask wearing plus distancing) in mosques (by sampling, not by checking each individual).
- jerf 5y agoI know it's easy to get cynical about "sampling" when you see a stream of studies sampling populations of millions with n = 12 and getting p values just barely considered "significant", but that's not the fault of "sampling". That's just... gathering no data, basically, or if you prefer, going through the motions of gathering data without actually doing it.
- cfn 5y agoI am not arguing with the method, I only think the language of the paper is misleading to the point that the parent commenter aparently thinks they actually analysed hundred of thousands of subjects when they just extrapolated their observations to that number. It may even be right and significant but that is not my point.
- dragontamer 5y agoI've reread the article + paper with your discussion in mind, and I agree with you. It seems misleading, and I failed to understand the study from the headline / abstract. Its not a "bad" study per se, but its definitely entering clickbait. I'm still happy they conducted the study and presented their research.