-
(I put these longer comments in a separate message so more easily ignored for those who want the TLDR version)
A few specific comments on the factcheck article (which, again, I think overall was excellent):
(1) People saying “Cochrane proves masks don’t work” are overstating their case. But equally, people trying to discredit Cochrane and conclude that “mask mandates” do work are also wrong. They might help some, but there is no clear evidence of that at this point.
(2) Loved the article overall, but there is plenty of motivated reasoning, saying, basically, yes there is no statistically significant evidence of an effect, but here’s why I think there might be one. Which is true. Better studies might show an effect.[b] But it is absurd to assume these hypothetical studies will show the positive effect you hope for before they’ve been done:[/b]
[i]”And looking at the COVID-19-specific studies, the findings are still uncertain, but lean toward a small protective effect, several experts said.”[/i]
[i]”… but this result was not statistically significant”[/i]
[i]”Taken together, these two RCTs are consistent with a small reduction in risk”[/i] (NOTE: they are also consistent with no reduction)
IOW, there is no convincing (statistically significant) evidence. “The data trend towards a positive result” is a mortal sin (yet all too common) in scientific research. It is simply motivated reasoning. Doesn’t mean your drug/treatment/etc can’t work, but you need better data to show it.
(3) [i]”To me, this shows that there is a reasonably clear modest benefit to community masking interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, decreasing the rate of infections in groups of people who are given masks and told to wear them by ~13%”[/i]
Ok, this goes too far. You take all the uncertainty, suggest several reasons the studies didn’t show a clear positive result, and then conclude the effect is ~13%? That’s (1) hand-waving and (2) abuse of statistics. Really crazy. The uncertainty is the uncertainty. You can’t take flawed underpowered studies that have point estimates you like and decide to only believe the point estimates.
(4) The last commenter nails it, IMO:
[i]She (Brainard) nevertheless agreed that the primary message of the review should be one of uncertainty.[/i]
[i][b]I cant argue with the Authors own written conclusions[/b]: the evidence quality is variable and creates a huge amount of uncertainties, she said in an email. We cant tell from available evidence that masks prevented infections according to our usual standards, which is 95% confidence that protection was achieved.[/i]
[i]Thats different from saying that masks dont work for community spread or for an individual. …[/i]
[i]It is lamentable that during [the] pandemic not enough RCTs were done to [have] better evidence what NPIs work or not,[/i]
