Read on Twitter
1/n I have been asked my opinion again! 
Going to answer this at length.
{inward preparation for another week of feeling really stressed, but hey, no worries, @CJ_C33} https://twitter.com/CJ_C33/status/1329114484682739717
Going to answer this at length.
{inward preparation for another week of feeling really stressed, but hey, no worries, @CJ_C33} https://twitter.com/CJ_C33/status/1329114484682739717
2/ The issue *putatively* at hand is a new Danish study on #facemasks, but as you can so ****easily**** see from the below tweet — and also the information I will give y'all *from that study*, some want to make it other issues. Plus, some can't read. https://twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1329084994820608002
3/ Here's a link to the study, & a screencap of the take-away & of the problems with the study (self-reporting!!! 
). So the results were all over the place, "compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in [ #COVID19] infection".
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
![3/ Here's a link to the study, & a screencap of the take-away & of the problems with the study (self-reporting!!! ). So the results were all over the place, "compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in [ #COVID19] infection". https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnH6armXcAMGN-d.jpg "3/ Here's a link to the study, & a screencap of the take-away & of the problems with the study (self-reporting!!! ). So the results were all over the place, \"compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in [ #COVID19] infection\". https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817")
). So the results were all over the place, "compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in [ #COVID19] infection". https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
4/ So, if you ask me, @CJ_C33, a study on #facemasks whose results are compatible w/ 46% reduction in transmission, to 23% increase (
), is a really useless study on the effectiveness of facemasks. The reliance on **self-reporting** here is majorly bad. https://twitter.com/Gurdur/status/1329119709627879439
), is a really useless study on the effectiveness of facemasks. The reliance on **self-reporting** here is majorly bad. https://twitter.com/Gurdur/status/1329119709627879439
5/ The authors of that study then do the Conclusion. Well. I **welcome** a 50% reduction in risk of being shot by some angry flamer. Does that make that bit clear? That 50% with a pandemic goes on to become *exponential* later.
But it's a useless study. Needs far more studies.
But it's a useless study. Needs far more studies.
6/ But there are more issues!! "JAMA, NEJM & Lancet REFUSED to publish", well yes, @JamesTodaroMD, those three have a >90% rejection rate on submissions, & this study is fairly useless, but nice try at the conspiracy-theory-type victimhood, James! https://twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1329084994820608002
7/ The nutcases with their, "But facemasks will turn you into a Giant Grey Lizard and give you cooties!!zomg!!!", are out in full force, of course. https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1329088689754972167
8/ I'll reply even more in depth once I've had the chance to really read the whole paper, @CJ_C33. But one *huge* problem w/ that study is that it relied on subjects *self-reporting* if they actually wore their face-masks all the time. That makes it useless. The rest is just bad
