Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance
Why not just link to the studies themselves instead of tying them all to a site of a certain persuasion? It would have more credibility. I certainly am suspicious and biased when it comes to articles put out by groups with an agenda on either side.
|
Because If I put up a wall of links, no one is going to click on them.
Some people might, but guess what? If you don't know what a P value is or something as basic as a hazard ratio, you're not going to understand it.
I have a strong background in dealing with medical data. I did a bunch of college work in the field, I worked in the medical field for years(years ago), but I dealt more with the data. I'm not a doctor, but I worked with some genius doctors on developing patient data capture and such. The systems I helped build tracked EXACTLY this kind of data. This is stuff I can read easily.
I'm guessing there are very few folks here that can understand much past the abstract.
The article I posted sums it up. They also point out how the CDC also has an agenda. It's clear that's the case too. Ignore what they don't like, pump up what they do like.
I'm entirely data driven. Give me solid evidence, you can convince me easily. Give me shoddy data, lots of cofounders, ambiguous results with a p value of .65 and I'm out.
The RCTs on masks are pretty good with good P values. The result is, unless you're using an N95, you're wasting your time.