4 ms·

> Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly? Because it had too few participants, or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low. The n

by goto11 5y ago

> Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly? Because it had too few participants, or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low. The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently. If I remember correctly the group without masks were infected about 20% more than the group with masks, but since the absolute numbers were too low is could have been due to random chance.

brigandish 5y ago
> Because it had too few participants From the study[1]: > A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. That's more than enough people. > or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low The study was conducted in April and May of 2020, there were clearly enough infectious people in the population[2] to warrant the study showing some importance. > The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently. From the study: > Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%) > Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. Don't you think it's strange that proven benefits are so hard to substantiate in a randomised controlled trial? These proven benefits can't be proven or shown to be beneficial across thousands of people, during a pandemic? That's not going to fly with me, especially since every other RCT done on masks prior to the pandemic failed to show efficacy against influenza, even in clinical environments. Maybe we could rerun the study now, while the highly infectious Omicron variant is running rampant, which apparently masks and vaccines are rubbish at preventing. It's almost as if the proven benefits aren't proven and hence, not benefits. Forgive the sarcasm but if people want to make bold claims then I suggest I may be able to poke holes in their case by mocking it, as I would with people knocking on my door claiming the apocalypse is nigh, or those telling me to change my behaviour because of whatever other pie in the sky belief they hold. When they come back with the RCT that shows the efficacy of masks - something, I might add, that should be possible in a pandemic - then there'll be something to discuss. Otherwise, the criticisms of the study, which weren't given before it was published I might add, are all quibbles. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817] [2] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-30..2020-06-02&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~DNK https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
- goto11 5y ago
  Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing. Are you saying the result was statistically significant?
  - brigandish 5y ago
    Statistical significance relies on more than just the number of participants, but if you want me to make my argument more simple for you, I can: When making bold claims, the claimant should provide evidence for those claims. Supply me with the RCT that proves the benefit of wearing masks. Do you have it?

by goto11 5y ago

brigandish 5y ago

> Because it had too few participants From the study[1]: > A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. That's more than enough people. > or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low The study was conducted in April and May of 2020, there were clearly enough infectious people in the population[2] to warrant the study showing some importance. > The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently. From the study: > Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%) > Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. Don't you think it's strange that proven benefits are so hard to substantiate in a randomised controlled trial? These proven benefits can't be proven or shown to be beneficial across thousands of people, during a pandemic? That's not going to fly with me, especially since every other RCT done on masks prior to the pandemic failed to show efficacy against influenza, even in clinical environments. Maybe we could rerun the study now, while the highly infectious Omicron variant is running rampant, which apparently masks and vaccines are rubbish at preventing. It's almost as if the proven benefits aren't proven and hence, not benefits. Forgive the sarcasm but if people want to make bold claims then I suggest I may be able to poke holes in their case by mocking it, as I would with people knocking on my door claiming the apocalypse is nigh, or those telling me to change my behaviour because of whatever other pie in the sky belief they hold. When they come back with the RCT that shows the efficacy of masks - something, I might add, that should be possible in a pandemic - then there'll be something to discuss. Otherwise, the criticisms of the study, which weren't given before it was published I might add, are all quibbles. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817] [2] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-30..2020-06-02&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~DNK https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

goto11 5y ago
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing. Are you saying the result was statistically significant?
- brigandish 5y ago
  Statistical significance relies on more than just the number of participants, but if you want me to make my argument more simple for you, I can: When making bold claims, the claimant should provide evidence for those claims. Supply me with the RCT that proves the benefit of wearing masks. Do you have it?