3 ms·
No, you are not interpreting it correctly. The 11% reduction is the effect of the intervention (encouraging people to use masks), which meant that the rate of p
by rafaelero 5y ago
No, you are not interpreting it correctly. The 11% reduction is the effect of the intervention (encouraging people to use masks), which meant that the rate of people complying with the measure went from 12% (control) to 42% (intervention). The 11% refers to the effect of increasing mask use by that magnitude.
- mdp2021 5y agoSo, having roughly one third of the population wear the mask reduced symptomatic infection of roughly a dozen percent. Can one suppose that an almost fully compliant population would see a reduction of symptomatic infections of roughly one third - or am I missing something? Can this study suggest that a compliant population should see roughly one third less infections? Edit: for example, the study lasted, I understand, only a couple of months: so, will this timeframe be enough to suppose that the exponential effects can be taken into account, and that the reduction in the infections should be more than just tripled, if one supposed almost full compliance?