4 ms·
> What point is this article trying to make? There is no evidence from RCT studies, that parachutes work (this post). There is no (or only very weak) evidence
by sampo 3y ago
> What point is this article trying to make?
There is no evidence from RCT studies, that parachutes work (this post).
There is no (or only very weak) evidence from RCT studies, that condoms work:
https://jech.bmj.com/content/65/2/100 https://jech.bmj.com/content/65/2/100
According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, there is no evidence from RCT studies, that face masks would protect against respiratory infections: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
The point is that the Cochrane review is probably wrong, and face masks do protect, just like parachutes and condoms. And the more general point is to criticize the whole process, that has made half of the Western medical doctors mask skeptics. The point is to say that there are protective equipment that obviously, measurably works, but for which it is difficult to present evidence from RCT-type studies.
- haldujai 3y agoThis article predates the Cochrane review and pandemic so I doubt that was their goal.
- sampo 3y agoThat is a good point, but I think their point was to bring attention to the flawed philosophy, so that mistakes could be avoided. And surprisingly soon after their 2018 paper, the flawed philosophy lead to such mistakes in a surprisingly relevant, important and timely matter. Linking their general points from 2018 to specific examples from the recent pandemic, is of course post hoc. But it demonstrates that their notion was not merely theoretical, but important in practice.
- jhbadger 3y agoIt's also parodying the the problem in some RCT to use unrealistic test cases which are supposed to be representative of actual clinical uses (hence testing parachutes as protection for jumping out of landed aircraft).