2 ms·
> It is, but it isn't going to work against COVID, period. It's interesting how you say that so definitively, when there are multiple, large RCTs ongoing, eval
by timr 5y ago
> It is, but it isn't going to work against COVID, period.
It's interesting how you say that so definitively, when there are multiple, large RCTs ongoing, evaluating the question.
Perhaps you're substituting your opinions for science?
> The null hypothesis is "it does not work". Then you carefully design a study to take care of all the variables, you do your double blind test with a placebo and you look at outcomes. That's the standard.
> As for mask effectiveness: they work, there is ongoing debate over how much they work.
Funny how "the standard" shifts from topic to topic, sentence to sentence. When it's an intervention you support, the presumption is positive, even if the collective evidence of effect is...mixed, at best.
- jacquesm 5y agoif it works it isn't going to work to the degree that has been claimed so far because an effect that big would have been easily observed. So these studies are in the realm of 'we can't rule it out 100% let's check one more time'. Since this is a forum and not a scientific paper I can claim with some confidence that it isn't going to work, if you want to take the opposite side of that bet be my guest. Masks work, whether it is 10% or 15% effective is what's at stake there, not whether they work or not. If ivermectin was 10% effective it would have been established long ago. You are guilty of exactly those things that you accuse me of.