3 ms·

Well that's my point. If these measures were really so effective, then there should have been a strong signal in spite of the other variables, but we didn't see

Well that's my point. If these measures were really so effective, then there should have been a strong signal in spite of the other variables, but we didn't see it.

kadoban 3y ago
The variables are all over the place though, why should the signal be strong?
- ghaff 3y ago
  At some point then though, it's about faith. The data is noisy but we believe this hard to discern signal to be true even in the absence of statistical evidence because it's complicated.
  - kadoban 3y ago
    Faith in what exactly?
    - ghaff 3y ago
      For many, that mitigation measures for which so much blood, sweat, and tears were poured into at significant cost and strife must have been worthwhile even given scant evidence.
- danenania 3y ago
  It should be strong if the effect is strong. We find strong signal in noisy data in all kinds of contexts. If all the states with masks and social distancing mandates had, on average, 30% less cases per capita than states without, that would be a strong signal even if it's not conclusive given all the other variables involved. I doubt any other variable could be found that would show that much signal. But we haven't see anything like that.
  - kadoban 3y ago
    > It should be strong if the effect is strong. We find strong signal in noisy data in all kinds of contexts And we fail to find signal, or can find whatever "signal" we want to find in all kinds of other noisy data. What says any kind of useful info is here to find?