
Originally Posted by
jono
We had some discussion of the problem with claiming mandates=masks in one of these threads last year. But to be fair to the non-maggots at Cochrane, they did mention right in the text:
"Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear."
I don't think it was so much their mistake--unless they failed to expect cherry picked quotes on Twitter, I guess.
I think it was their mistake, because while there were pieces of their report that explained things correctly, they also wrote some things that were easy to misinterpret (including misinterpretation by their own authors). They openly acknowledged this
[The EIC] said that “this wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize,” and that Cochrane would revise the summary.
Soares-Weiser also said, though, that
one of the lead authors of the review even more seriously misinterpreted its finding on masks by saying in an interview that it proved “there is just no evidence that they make any difference.” In fact, Soares-Weiser said, “that statement is not an accurate representation of what the review found.”
I don't see how you read that and say they didn't make a mistake.
"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
Bookmarks