Read on Twitter
DISCUSSION:
I am in favor of masks & intransigent w/Twitter unrigorous babble; but one must ethically try to have a fresh look when facing a new study.
Let's do an objective analysis of this study to see if has any merit, if it can change one's mind, etc. https://twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1329084994820608002
I am in favor of masks & intransigent w/Twitter unrigorous babble; but one must ethically try to have a fresh look when facing a new study.
Let's do an objective analysis of this study to see if has any merit, if it can change one's mind, etc. https://twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1329084994820608002
2) For starters the paper does'nt make the claim by "James Todaro, MD", that masks were NOT effective.
Worse, there is in fact a big problem w/the study: it is ONLY saying:
"If you have exposure to COVID inside your house, wearing a mask in the garden won't protect you".
Worse, there is in fact a big problem w/the study: it is ONLY saying:
"If you have exposure to COVID inside your house, wearing a mask in the garden won't protect you".
3) Aside from some statistical problems, this is junk.
A proper study should be:
"What is the risk reduction for those catching COVID OUTSIDE their house" by eliminating at home infections, which is the BULK of the spreading.
A proper study should be:
"What is the risk reduction for those catching COVID OUTSIDE their house" by eliminating at home infections, which is the BULK of the spreading.
4) Simply, it turns out that the "James Todaro, MD" in question either has not practiced medicine or dropped out early, & is a bitcoin operator, part of the cluster bitcoin=no masks =... . https://twitter.com/trishankkarthik/status/1329520764039569408?s=20
