Read on Twitter
My only mask RCT comment is that people complaining about low adherence of a pragmatic behavioral intervention are bonkers.
You’re saying we need trials with perfect mask adherence so we can....convince more people to actually wear masks? Do you see the issue?
You’re saying we need trials with perfect mask adherence so we can....convince more people to actually wear masks? Do you see the issue?
Here’s the paradox. Any behavioral RCT that has perfect adherence is likely not representative of the real world. Any real world RCT won’t have perfect adherence.
Every complaint you’ll see about the mask RCT will be the same complaints we’ve seen for decades about cancer screening RCTs or any other complex intervention. If you will always dismiss humans being human out of hand, you have to admit that some questions are just unfalsifiable.
Ok, I lied. Two comments about the mask study.
Randomization is very powerful and very rare. In the pros and cons of any study, it takes many limitations to cancel out randomization. Dismissing an RCT for the same reasons you dismiss an observational study is doing it wrong.
Randomization is very powerful and very rare. In the pros and cons of any study, it takes many limitations to cancel out randomization. Dismissing an RCT for the same reasons you dismiss an observational study is doing it wrong.
