Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not claim the special ability to read minds and know a persons motive, but I do claim to be able to see science's take in through early March, 2020 and in late March 2020 and see the complete 180 without any new data, or use of control groups (kind of a key part of actual science). I also claim to be able to look at the state figures and see that mask-heavy states are not doing better. I'd love for you to be able to explain to me why science was incorrect until late March, 2020. Talk about straw mans....

Yes controls are always preferable but sometimes not practical.

Science changes constantly, and at least reading the article suggests they did a really deep dive and critical reexamination of the data. If there was bias, financial self-interest, etc. that would certainly be a factor to consider, but I don't see that.

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

The 2019 study I linked, from the CDC, used controls. 10 RCT's even. Why is it only now, after the narrative switch, that they cannot use controls?

With controls, they found that masks do no nothing to stop transmission (which was expected as this is not what these masks were made to do). After the narrative switch, they abandoned controls and now conclude the opposite. Why would I believe the unctrolled studies over the same groups controlled studies?

Well for one you're in the middle of an active pandemic, pretty hard to set up an RCT for masks on a global basis.

They certainly discussed the RCTs in this section.
Reviews and RCTs of Mask Use for Other Respiratory Illnesses.

Also, they noted this:
The standard RCT paradigm is well suited to medical interventions in which a treatment has a measurable effect at the individual level and, furthermore, interventions and their outcomes are independent across persons comprising a target population.

By contrast, the effect of masks on a pandemic is a population-level outcome where individual-level interventions have an aggregate effect on their community as a system.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well for one you're in the middle of an active pandemic, pretty hard to set up an RCT for masks on a global basis.

I'll even assume that this is true and it is now impossible to use controls. Does it not still suggest that the earlier studies are better, because they use controls? Why should I ignore the science before March, 2020 and just accept whatever the CDC says after March 2020?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'll even assume that this is true and it is now impossible to use controls. Does it not still suggest that the earlier studies are better, because they use controls? Why should I ignore the science before March, 2020 and just accept whatever the CDC says after March 2020?

See my addendum quoting what they said about RCTs. And I am relying at the moment on this article, not the CDC.

I'll repeat the quote so it's in one place with your question.

"The standard RCT paradigm is well suited to medical interventions in which a treatment has a measurable effect at the individual level and, furthermore, interventions and their outcomes are independent across persons comprising a target population.

By contrast, the effect of masks on a pandemic is a population-level outcome where individual-level interventions have an aggregate effect on their community as a system."

[Peter_Spaeth]

By the way:

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

[G1911]

.

[G1911]

.