To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[bobzilla]

And once again we are ignoring the meat and potatoes to argue about the plate they were served on

 

[drillsgt]

It's a paper that can be cited, yes. Is this one authoritative on masks? Well, not if you think it says masks are 0% effective. And it's still not a study. It does support my view that mask mandates aren't actually useful enough to justify mandating them, and certainly not useful enough to support a viewpoint that shames people who are skeptical. That's not the same narrative that the GWP is trying to push, or saying they're 0% effective.

Is your problem with the paper or GWP? All will be right with your universe again as the experts (from their parents basement) over at politifact have ruled the study false, at least the part about the physiological effects. I'm confused though, with the science being so settled by politifact someone needs to tell the researchers at University of NM to stop their current study lol.

 

[nonobaddog]

If you have a balance of bs you still have bs. Spin on the left countered by spin on the right doesn’t result in truth.

But you have balanced bs which is quite a bit less messy than that unbalanced stuff.

 

[nonobaddog]

It has long been accepted that there are different types of studies, just like drillsgt said.
Literature reviews and meta analyses are included in those types. Just because they don't actively recruit new bodies does not mean they have any less scientific value.
If you want to change the definition of what a study is or isn't, maybe you should write it up and submit it for peer review.

 

[jamil]

It is an opinion, to some anything short of a RCT isn't a 'study' lol. Yes, in the strictest sense lit reviews are not what we consider a defined 'study' but also doesn't warrant them being dismissed as jamil tried to do. This example since it started with defined hypotheses would be a systematic review since it attempts to answer defined research questions vs a broad literature review.

If I was dismissive at all it was of GWP who as actively drives narratives as well as any mainstream rag. And for good reason here because GWP claimed the paper was more than it was and implied it said things it didn’t say.

If you read what I wrote about the paper cited, I had some good things to say about that.

 

[jamil]

But you have balanced bs which is quite a bit less messy than that unbalanced stuff.

I think I can agree with that. I’m having an “unbalanced” one right now. It’s kinda messy.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think I can agree with that. I’m having an “unbalanced” one right now. It’s kinda messy.

 

[jamil]

Hold on. I’ll be out in a minute. Anyone know where the air freshener is?

 

[chipbennett]

It has long been accepted that there are different types of studies, just like drillsgt said.
Literature reviews and meta analyses are included in those types. Just because they don't actively recruit new bodies does not mean they have any less scientific value.
If you want to change the definition of what a study is or isn't, maybe you should write it up and submit it for peer review.

They most certainly do have less scientific value. A review of various studies:

a) May or may not include all relevant studies (I'm looking at you, Ancel Keys and your cherry-picked "7 Countries" study)
b) Includes studies that have different populations, different sample sizes, different controls, different end points, and different ANOVA

You simply can't mash all those data together, and pretend like they are one, cohesive data set - nor can you draw one, cohesive conclusion from them.

Do they have scientific value? Certainly. Are they as value as either a single epidemiological study, much less a single RCT? Absolutely not.

 

[Hawkeye]

I get short winded walking a big store with a mask on and so does CKW.

I can do that without a mask on depending on the store...

 

[jamil]

I can do that without a mask on depending on the store...

I don't always have breathing problems when I walk around stores in a mask. Sometimes I feel like it's no problem at all. If I've had a big meal though, I tend to have a hard time walking around a store masked. I'm not sure what all is causing that physiologically but that's how it affects me. I've also taken O2 readings with and without. With reduces my O2 by about 4 or 5 points consistently.

 

[Chewie]

You're coming off pretty arrogant sir. Of course you know everyone's problems better than they do. That arrogance just might be one of the reasons a large majority here consider your pontifications regarding mask efficacy just more of the same political b.s. you are ironically mocking.

Lighten up buttercup. Whether you agree or disagree everyone has their opinion and all are valid in the mind of the one presenting them. As for arrogance, that is born of knowledge and beliefs without regard to the sources especially when dealing with something like the rona. To many opposing views/statistics/justifications and exspurts (spelling intentional), not to mention the ever mobile goal posts.
Some people present themselves differently than others (like opinions) based on information chosen.
Now guns are entirely different, don't confuse the two in expectations of opinions.
1911 is king!


OMG, I defended Kirk?

 

[nonobaddog]

They most certainly do have less scientific value. A review of various studies:

a) May or may not include all relevant studies (I'm looking at you, Ancel Keys and your cherry-picked "7 Countries" study)
b) Includes studies that have different populations, different sample sizes, different controls, different end points, and different ANOVA

You simply can't mash all those data together, and pretend like they are one, cohesive data set - nor can you draw one, cohesive conclusion from them.

Do they have scientific value? Certainly. Are they as value as either a single epidemiological study, much less a single RCT? Absolutely not.

No, they do not have less scientific value just because they are a literature review.
Then you cite some potential problems that may or may not be true.

Kind of like a clinical study
a) may or may not be designed well.
b) may or may not include patients or subjects that should have been excluded
c) may or may not have properly done statistics

You simply can't say a conclusion is valid or not valid just because the study type was X or Y.
I have seen many examples of good and bad studies of every type.

You can't simply say one type of study is good or bad because it depends on many parameters that can be done properly or not for every type of study.

I would have thought you knew this.

 

[buckwacker]

Lighten up buttercup. Whether you agree or disagree everyone has their opinion and all are valid in the mind of the one presenting them. As for arrogance, that is born of knowledge and beliefs without regard to the sources especially when dealing with something like the rona. To many opposing views/statistics/justifications and exspurts (spelling intentional), not to mention the ever mobile goal posts.
Some people present themselves differently than others (like opinions) based on information chosen.
Now guns are entirely different, don't confuse the two in expectations of opinions.
1911 is king!


OMG, I defended Kirk?

Ok?? Maybe reread the back and forth a little more closely. It IS pretty arrogant to tell someone tell else that a mask doesn't make them short of breath when THEIR EXPERIENCE tells them it does. I wasn't talking about studies or politics, only about the presumption by one individual that he understood everyone else's physiology and health experiences better then they do.

 

[nonobaddog]

Ok?? Maybe reread the back and forth a little more closely. It IS pretty arrogant to tell someone tell else that a mask doesn't make them short of breath when THEIR EXPERIENCE tells them it does. I wasn't talking about studies or politics, only about the presumption by one individual that he understood everyone else's physiology and health experiences better then they do.

Yes, that is arrogant, and there are other words.

 

[drillsgt]

They most certainly do have less scientific value. A review of various studies:

a) May or may not include all relevant studies (I'm looking at you, Ancel Keys and your cherry-picked "7 Countries" study)
b) Includes studies that have different populations, different sample sizes, different controls, different end points, and different ANOVA

You simply can't mash all those data together, and pretend like they are one, cohesive data set - nor can you draw one, cohesive conclusion from them.

Do they have scientific value? Certainly. Are they as value as either a single epidemiological study, much less a single RCT? Absolutely not.

Meta-Analyses are incredibly useful studies, i'd be more inclined to look at one of those first than a random RCT I pulled up on PubMed. Typically a good meta-analysis is only going to evaluate RCT's anyway but also will give you risk of bias assessments which help you determine the scientific merit before you even look up a single paper and they do mash all the data together lol, if nothing more it helps you see the results quickly and the level of agreement between different studies.

 

[nonobaddog]

Meta-Analyses are incredibly useful studies, i'd be more inclined to look at one of those first than a random RCT I pulled up on PubMed. Typically a good meta-analysis is only going to evaluate RCT's anyway but also will give you risk of bias assessments which help you determine the scientific merit before you even look up a single paper and they do mash all the data together lol, if nothing more it helps you see the results quickly and the level of agreement between different studies.

Yes, they are all very useful in doing grant proposals and initial study designs.

 

[drillsgt]

Yes, they are all very useful in doing grant proposals and initial study designs.

I've pretty much been involved in every type of study except a strictly qualitative one, they all have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Chewie]

Ok?? Maybe reread the back and forth a little more closely. It IS pretty arrogant to tell someone tell else that a mask doesn't make them short of breath when THEIR EXPERIENCE tells them it does. I wasn't talking about studies or politics, only about the presumption by one individual that he understood everyone else's physiology and health experiences better then they do.

Maybe you should reread mine as well. I never said he was right or wrong, that it was his opinion based on information he took as fact.
If he had put in all the details no one would read it because it would look like something a legislator wrote. He also said OOPS in lawyereze.


Twice in 1 day I've defended Kirk, I need to get a life!

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe you should reread mine as well. I never said he was right or wrong, that it was his opinion based on information he took as fact.
If he had put in all the details no one would read it because it would look like something a legislator wrote. He also said OOPS in lawyereze.


Twice in 1 day I've defended Kirk, I need to get a life!

Next thing you know, you're liking Kut's posts...