Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by TeMPOraL on Friday January 29, 2021 @11:23AM (#25958974)

This is a pandora's box. My recollection of the events is this: around March 2020, there were some links to somewhat shoddy studies of effectiveness of masks in case of other diseases, but the official statement was that masks were not proven to be effective - but that's because there was no randomized control trial performed to check mask effectiveness against SARS variants, and how could there be?

This spins off into a whole discussion of how evidence-based medicine can lead you off the cliff when you follow its letter, and not spirit, because despite something being bloody obvious, there is no RCT proving that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by compiler-guy on Friday January 29, 2021 @11:47AM (#25959308)

My favorite example:

“Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials“

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by DanBC on Friday January 29, 2021 @12:30PM (#25959884)

> but that's because there was no randomized control trial performed to check mask effectiveness against SARS variants, and how could there be?

The argument was not "we can't do tests because this is new", the argument was "we've got dozens of studies across a range of settings and respiratory diseases (which we expect to act similarly to covid) and we struggle to see any benefit, until we drop the quality of the research down".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by TeMPOraL on Friday January 29, 2021 @01:07PM (#25960345)

IIRC the argument was "we can't say it works because we have no relevant tests at all". That's what I remember from March, but I may be misremembering.

[ Parent | on HN ]