World News

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] lukini@beehaw.org 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

You ever gonna respond to people telling you your posts are a misrepresentation or are you just gonna call people dumb fucks? Kinda hard to trust someone posting like this.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Chipthemonk@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago

I’ll happily respond to someone that refutes the Cochrane review in a logical and substantive way.

parent

[–] HackyHorse3000@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I know you're being combative so it's unlikely, but did you actually read both sources? One is a review of around 70 studies, before and during the pandemic, sonme unpublished. The other is a review of 5000 articles which found statistically significant results..

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Chipthemonk@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The responded article says this:

A total of 6 studies were included, involving 4 countries, after a total of 5,178 eligible articles were searched in databases and references.

They literally typed some shit into the journal search database that had that many articles. They didn’t study all of those articles. Their study is founded exclusively from 6 studies. The Cochrane review’s approach is far more comprehensive and goes into considerably more depth in many more studies.

So, maybe you didn’t read the articles? Or maybe you don’t understand population level, public health study methods.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] HackyHorse3000@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Fair point, I did misread that. But it seems you're acting in bad faith with just one source again. Any search amongst published articles provide evidence for the efficacy and cost effectiveness of masks as a adjunct preventative measure. It seems rather like cherry picking to trust the one place that goes against the grain, no?