RCT proves masks work « Economics Job Market Rumors

1 year - 64 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 249 Goods vs 111 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Off Topic » Off Topic

RCT proves masks work

Economist
cc5f

study is a joke
been debunked by b.a.s.e.d anon twitter
https://twitter.com/ElonBachman/status/1433081713727508484
https://twitter.com/ElonBachman/status/1433101129253101573
https://twitter.com/ElonBachman/status/1433107275888136198

this guy is... not smart.
how can you have a placebo group in a test of masking? that's literally impossible

There is a placebo group that did not get the "nudge" (free masks + messages). The guy is a total j*o*k*e.

That’s not what placebo means lmao

Randomization was at the level of the village so there were untreated villages - how is that not placebo / control?

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !
Economist
1fef

ok undrgreeads. Think of an RCT for some medication. A placebo would be a group that gets a pill with nothing in it, whereas a control group could simply be a group that gets nothing at all.

1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
e672

Small positive effect, just marginally significant at 5%. However, treatment villages also practiced significantly more social distancing than the control villages. They don't well disentangle the mask effect from the social distancing effect.

Further, the mask promotion policies likely made the uneducated villagers more aware of COVID overall and they likely adjusted behavior in possibly unobservable ways.

1 year ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
e672

Shouldn't they be clustering by randomization pair

Not if they want to maintain statistical significance.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
ed70

Cloth masks had no impact -- surgical masks did. The study is actually pretty negative for what is occurring in most areas

1 year ago # QUOTE 11 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
e672

Remember the R for delta is 6 so even if you buy the 10% reduction, you're still dealing with an R of 5.5 and we're arguing over the speed of the spread. Poor counties can't lock down so masks aren't going to do much. What they need are effective treatments like vaccines and therapeutics not masks

That R number is likely far overestimated.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
d7f3

Nobel Prize when

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
46fe

Small positive effect, just marginally significant at 5%. However, treatment villages also practiced significantly more social distancing than the control villages. They don't well disentangle the mask effect from the social distancing effect.
Further, the mask promotion policies likely made the uneducated villagers more aware of COVID overall and they likely adjusted behavior in possibly unobservable ways.

There is cloth mask vs surgical mask, so given the same distancing in both cases, the effect of surgical masks stands.

1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
46fe

Remember the R for delta is 6 so even if you buy the 10% reduction, you're still dealing with an R of 5.5 and we're arguing over the speed of the spread. Poor counties can't lock down so masks aren't going to do much. What they need are effective treatments like vaccines and therapeutics not masks

That R number is likely far overestimated.

People confuse R0 (decesase spreads without people knowing

Small positive effect, just marginally significant at 5%. However, treatment villages also practiced significantly more social distancing than the control villages. They don't well disentangle the mask effect from the social distancing effect.
Further, the mask promotion policies likely made the uneducated villagers more aware of COVID overall and they likely adjusted behavior in possibly unobservable ways.

Look at the effect on > 50 and > 60. It is huge.

1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 2 Vlad !
Economist
ba82

Remember the R for delta is 6 so even if you buy the 10% reduction, you're still dealing with an R of 5.5 and we're arguing over the speed of the spread. Poor counties can't lock down so masks aren't going to do much. What they need are effective treatments like vaccines and therapeutics not masks

R0s assume no endogenous behavioral response. R0= 2.5 for alpha translated into effect R(t) that bounced between 1.6 and .8 in the US.
Given behavioral response and a vaccine roll-out, we'd be looking at R(t) in the same ballpark. So 10% fewer infected each week from increasing mask compliance from 10% to 30% (or something like that) is a big deal. If you kick compliance up to 60%, you'd get 20% reduction.
Moreover, the reductions for most vulnerable group of old folks were huge -- 35%.

Rt might bounce around 0.8 to 1.6 for rich countries, where a lot of people can stay at home, but not poor ones. Promoting masks in poor countries is a waste of time. And that's assuming they work, which they dont.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
e220

This is why Fauci says we just need to mask until next summer then we can return to normality

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
46fe

Remember the R for delta is 6 so even if you buy the 10% reduction, you're still dealing with an R of 5.5 and we're arguing over the speed of the spread. Poor counties can't lock down so masks aren't going to do much. What they need are effective treatments like vaccines and therapeutics not masks

R0s assume no endogenous behavioral response. R0= 2.5 for alpha translated into effect R(t) that bounced between 1.6 and .8 in the US.
Given behavioral response and a vaccine roll-out, we'd be looking at R(t) in the same ballpark. So 10% fewer infected each week from increasing mask compliance from 10% to 30% (or something like that) is a big deal. If you kick compliance up to 60%, you'd get 20% reduction.
Moreover, the reductions for most vulnerable group of old folks were huge -- 35%.

Rt might bounce around 0.8 to 1.6 for rich countries, where a lot of people can stay at home, but not poor ones. Promoting masks in poor countries is a waste of time. And that's assuming they work, which they dont.

You make an assumption that they don't work. Have you verified your assumption with an RCT?

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !
Economist
e672

Not if cloth mask villages behaved differently that surgical mask villages.

Small positive effect, just marginally significant at 5%. However, treatment villages also practiced significantly more social distancing than the control villages. They don't well disentangle the mask effect from the social distancing effect.
Further, the mask promotion policies likely made the uneducated villagers more aware of COVID overall and they likely adjusted behavior in possibly unobservable ways.

There is cloth mask vs surgical mask, so given the same distancing in both cases, the effect of surgical masks stands.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
46fe

Remember the R for delta is 6 so even if you buy the 10% reduction, you're still dealing with an R of 5.5 and we're arguing over the speed of the spread. Poor counties can't lock down so masks aren't going to do much. What they need are effective treatments like vaccines and therapeutics not masks

R0s assume no endogenous behavioral response. R0= 2.5 for alpha translated into effect R(t) that bounced between 1.6 and .8 in the US.
Given behavioral response and a vaccine roll-out, we'd be looking at R(t) in the same ballpark. So 10% fewer infected each week from increasing mask compliance from 10% to 30% (or something like that) is a big deal. If you kick compliance up to 60%, you'd get 20% reduction.
Moreover, the reductions for most vulnerable group of old folks were huge -- 35%.

Rt might bounce around 0.8 to 1.6 for rich countries, where a lot of people can stay at home, but not poor ones. Promoting masks in poor countries is a waste of time. And that's assuming they work, which they dont.

And even so, shaving off even a few percentage points in high-growth regime would save many people from harm's way until everyone gets vaccinated.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
46fe

Not if cloth mask villages behaved differently that surgical mask villages.

That's a strong assumption that is not supported by data.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
ba82

Remember the R for delta is 6 so even if you buy the 10% reduction, you're still dealing with an R of 5.5 and we're arguing over the speed of the spread. Poor counties can't lock down so masks aren't going to do much. What they need are effective treatments like vaccines and therapeutics not masks

R0s assume no endogenous behavioral response. R0= 2.5 for alpha translated into effect R(t) that bounced between 1.6 and .8 in the US.
Given behavioral response and a vaccine roll-out, we'd be looking at R(t) in the same ballpark. So 10% fewer infected each week from increasing mask compliance from 10% to 30% (or something like that) is a big deal. If you kick compliance up to 60%, you'd get 20% reduction.
Moreover, the reductions for most vulnerable group of old folks were huge -- 35%.

Rt might bounce around 0.8 to 1.6 for rich countries, where a lot of people can stay at home, but not poor ones. Promoting masks in poor countries is a waste of time. And that's assuming they work, which they dont.

You make an assumption that they don't work. Have you verified your assumption with an RCT?

Go to a mirror with a mask on and exhale. The mirror will steam up. It's not like peeing with your pants on

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 5 Vlad !
Economist
e672

Thats not my problem. Its on the authors to convince me that there is no unobservable difference. I remain unconvinced.

Not if cloth mask villages behaved differently that surgical mask villages.

That's a strong assumption that is not supported by data.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1fef

Not if cloth mask villages behaved differently that surgical mask villages.

Small positive effect, just marginally significant at 5%. However, treatment villages also practiced significantly more social distancing than the control villages. They don't well disentangle the mask effect from the social distancing effect.
Further, the mask promotion policies likely made the uneducated villagers more aware of COVID overall and they likely adjusted behavior in possibly unobservable ways.

There is cloth mask vs surgical mask, so given the same distancing in both cases, the effect of surgical masks stands.

please look at the paper before you comment

1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
ba82

Thats not my problem. Its on the authors to convince me that there is no unobservable difference. I remain unconvinced.

Not if cloth mask villages behaved differently that surgical mask villages.

That's a strong assumption that is not supported by data.

That the age response is so heterogeneous points to behavioral change. I.e. the mask theatre is a reminder to older people they are more at risk. It's not a good paper

1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 2 Vlad !
Economist
ba82

Not if cloth mask villages behaved differently that surgical mask villages.

Small positive effect, just marginally significant at 5%. However, treatment villages also practiced significantly more social distancing than the control villages. They don't well disentangle the mask effect from the social distancing effect.
Further, the mask promotion policies likely made the uneducated villagers more aware of COVID overall and they likely adjusted behavior in possibly unobservable ways.

There is cloth mask vs surgical mask, so given the same distancing in both cases, the effect of surgical masks stands.

please look at the paper before you comment

Where's the regression where they control for social distancing?

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

« Previous 123 4 Next »

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

RCT proves masks work

Reply »