All this means is they think they are matching trajectories [between masked and no-mask counties], but the actual pandemic is almost surely doing different things. If I were to bet, it is more steep and brisk in no-mask mandate places. Then the mask mandate is implemented, and of course, covid-19 spread, which is non linear, may grow substantively over time, but that is going to happen disproportionately more in no-mandate counties as they started time zero with much brisker epidemic spread.And he's only warming up. He also discusses the fear factor, where people ineffectively mask (mandate) up and effectively social distance out of fear, but the masks get all the credit. Apparently there are even more statistical sins below the fold, but the PlagueBlog budget does not cover Substack subscriptions so our reporting ends here. Alex Berenson reports on an event entirely unrelated to COVID: Greta Thunberg invades the Ukraine.
This is a damning limitation that thwarts the entire paper in my opinion. It cannot be saved by back calculations. Trust me, I wasted an afternoon in excel trying. Finally, this likely explains why the effect size seen here is too good to be true. Free surgical masks and strong advocacy had an 11% relative risk reduction in Bangladesh and cloth failed entirely. How can a mask mandate— mostly cloth masks let’s be honest— achieve a 20-35% reduction in cases? I suspect mismatching is the root reason why the effect is too good to be true.
P.S. Massachusetts cases were up a tenth of a percentage point today.
No comments:
Post a Comment