Read on Twitter
Dear Peter, @ClarkeMicah, apologies for my absence this afternoon. We were completing our final day of filming. I meant no disrespect. I'd like to pick up on a number of points you make. This is an important debate so please bear with me if I make any points at length ... https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1330874052114862082
Firstly, we're comparing the values of hard experimental work (RCTs etc) and empirical data in an evolving crisis. Conclusions drawn from empirical data are not baseless assertions. For example, retrospective analysis of empirical data revealed the hazards of smoking ...
There are no RCTs for CoViD (that we know of) because no reputable medical research institute would expose people to a dangerous pathogen that has no existing cure. As with the development of a vaccine, the only method is to study large groups and see what happens to them ...
This empirical data, as it's been amassed, has shown that mask-wearing reduces the spread of the virus. I explained the mechanism in another post earlier today. The mask reduces dispersal of the virus by the wearer. There are studies which show this clearly ...
You're probably familiar with the images of coughs and sneezes being partially contained by a mask. I agree masks don't fully prevent CoViD. But they reduce its spread. The effect of many people wearing masks is to reduce the number of people infected by a contagious subject ...
... the so-called R number (in this example, most properly Rt). We also both agree that the benefit for the wearer's own health is extremely limited. Again, I refer you to the empirical evidence of the effective reduction of virus spread by mask-wearing in 2 articles I cited ...
... earlier today, the meta-analysis in Nature and the retrospective study in Kansas. In Kansas, mask-wearing reduced spread by half. This study corrected for other factors such as social distancing and mobility. So if we value this strong empirical evidence, as I do ...
... we reach the well-founded empirical scientific conclusion that mask wearing significantly reduces spread of CoViD, while accepting the evidence from the Danish research that the benefit to the wearer is extremely limited (depending on mask-type, of course).
You make many good points, Peter, as befits a man of your intellectual rigour. I agree wholeheartedly with many of your observations regarding the management and messaging in the pandemic by the UK Govt, SAGE and so on. Early in March I was staggered by official messaging ...
... on the low importance of testing. There was also confused messaging here and in the US on the importance of mask-wearing due to (legitimate) political and public health concerns about conserving the mask supply for frontline health care ...
This confused and politicised messaging has had the effect of creating mistrust. In that regard, you're spot on. I don't trust the Govt to get this right but I do trust the best science. The best science gives us a persuasive body of empirical evidence supporting ...
... a cheap, simple public-health measure that almost everyone can adopt to reduce the spread CoViD-19: #wearamask 
.
.
