4 ms·

The Cochrane review is underwhelming because it is mediocre[0]. And its main author is far from dispassionate: "The study's lead author, Tom Jefferson of the U

by aredox 2y ago

The Cochrane review is underwhelming because it is mediocre[0]. And its main author is far from dispassionate: "The study's lead author, Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford, promoted the misleading interpretation. When asked about different kinds of masks, including N95s, he declared, “Makes no difference—none of it.” In another interview, he called mask mandates scientifically baseless." When the main author is misleading about the conclusions of his own report, you have to wonder how good his work was. But if you want just arguments over data rather than doubting Jefferson on a personal basis, this paper[1] makes a compelling argument that the RCTs in the Cochrane review itself are good enough to make the argument masking works. GAVI has also a good answer to Cochrane[2]. [0] https://archive.ph/FlApv https://archive.ph/FlApv [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484132/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484132/ [2] https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/yes-masks-reduce-risk-spreading-covid-despite-review-saying-they-dont https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/yes-masks-reduce-risk-spre...

n8henrie 2y ago
> The Cochrane review is underwhelming because it is mediocre I would consider the article you're referencing less than mediocre. "The Cochrane review didn't show what we expected it would show because their standards are too high." They are not conflating "absence of evidence" -- readers are. I think it's odd how often people reference the Bangladesh study as evidence supporting masks, apparently without having read it. Ultimately, I think masks probably do have a statistically significant benefit. I also think that if the rigorous studies (yes, I mean mostly RCTs) to date have been underpowered to show this benefit, that the effect size is likely to be small enough to make the costs of bickering potentially nullify those benefits. I still wear an N95 every shift.

by aredox 2y ago

n8henrie 2y ago

> The Cochrane review is underwhelming because it is mediocre I would consider the article you're referencing less than mediocre. "The Cochrane review didn't show what we expected it would show because their standards are too high." They are not conflating "absence of evidence" -- readers are. I think it's odd how often people reference the Bangladesh study as evidence supporting masks, apparently without having read it. Ultimately, I think masks probably do have a statistically significant benefit. I also think that if the rigorous studies (yes, I mean mostly RCTs) to date have been underpowered to show this benefit, that the effect size is likely to be small enough to make the costs of bickering potentially nullify those benefits. I still wear an N95 every shift.