In an unlikely turn of events, you appear to be an actual human and not a bot (from a cursory look at your comment history). So I say, gently:
> because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification
Do you genuinely believe that this is a fair characterization of the sentiment of the person (or position) to which you are responding, giving the benefit of the doubt?
> Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged.
It boils down to this: encouraging an intervention in public places needs to be based on unambiguous evidence, supported by genuine, authentic science and presented in a way that is convincing to a scientifically-literate society such as ours.
Consider, for example, the evidence in favor of the use of seatbelts, condoms, traffic-calming infrastructure, or hard hats (the latter of which I acknowledge don't require RCTs to be validated).
These products have produced a reliable, measurable, significant change in outcomes to the extent that no reasonable person questions their efficacy impact (though even with these, there is some reasonable dispute regarding trade-offs in each case).
The intervention in question has fallen way, way short of this standard - so much so that it's difficult to make a viable comparison. Despite mandates across a literal majority of geographic landmass of the country, there is still no evidence of any benefit with regard to community transmission rates. And on the research side, only nine RCTs - and none at all regarding source control - have been conducted.
We've watched as a huge chorus of the world's experts have called for RCTs, and have been told by charlatan bureaucrats and profiteers that such a venture is comparable to a parachute RCT. Do you think that's likely to be convincing?
Meanwhile, the (typical, expected, obvious) extrapolation in the Cochrane review has been singled-out, and the waters muddied, for pointing out in sober terms what the RCTs actually said.
It has been reduced to "well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", creating an obvious catch-22 as the same data is puzzlingly used as an excuse not to perform further science on the matter.
Believe me when I say: we care about you. I wish you good health and am happy to take evidence-based steps to ensuring that the world is a healthy, vibrant place for you and people like you. But you go too far when you ask that others to ignore their own good-faith assessment of the facts at hand. And the facts are unambiguous: respiratory pathogens emerge every so often and infect nearly all members of many animal species. There does not appear to be a viable intervention to stop this, and it's not even obvious is stopping it is desirable, as these pathogens confer immunity to those infected. It's an equilibrium and part of a broader ecology in which we live.
You are loved, even by this stranger. Please don't see commitment to data-driven approaches to public health interventions as a hunger for immediate gratification; this is nearly the opposite of the reality of the situation.
What data do you have that say that my comment is likely to be a bot? (genuinely curious)
As I first mentioned, Random Controlled Trials are unlikely to be the best measure for this.
>>encouraging an intervention in public places needs to be based on unambiguous evidence, supported by genuine, authentic science and presented in a way that is convincing to a scientifically-literate society such as ours.
>>These products have produced a reliable, measurable, significant change in outcomes
Yes, true for those products and also for the intervention of wearing N95 masks (I fully agree that other masks are basically placebos).
Again, the most convincing evidence of the effectiveness of mask intervention is that despite crazy levels of anti- and poor-compliance, and limited availability of N95 masks, we drove extinct an entire lineage of another airborne disease, simply by taking small measures that reduce R0 of airborne pathogens. It was not even the target, just collateral damage.
>>to the extent that no reasonable person questions their efficacy impact
This is a nice to have but definitely not necessary qualifying criteria. And, with every one of the measures you mentioned, there were and still are people who claim to be unconvinced. It is kind of what leadership is about - moving the comfort zone to a better place.
>>hunger for immediate gratification
Watching the anti-mask / anti-vax attitudes, especially when they are expressed as some kind of fear of state power over the individual, I'm sorry to say that the most fundamental basis I've seen for that is freeloading and entitled hostility to inconvenience or needing to care about others in society.
They refuse to undertake a minor inconvenience to what will help them and everyone else in society, and in doing so, freeload on the herd immunity or reduction in R0 maintained by their smarter peers. Valuing your own convenience over everyone else's health maybe isn't best called "instant gratification", but it isn't far off. If you have a better suggestion, let me know.
Thx for the love; same to you. I'm all for data-driven approaches to public health interventions; sadly many of those who oppose them are not data driven, but have other motivations, and disguising those as "data driven" does not make it so.
> because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification
Do you genuinely believe that this is a fair characterization of the sentiment of the person (or position) to which you are responding, giving the benefit of the doubt?
> Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged.
It boils down to this: encouraging an intervention in public places needs to be based on unambiguous evidence, supported by genuine, authentic science and presented in a way that is convincing to a scientifically-literate society such as ours.
Consider, for example, the evidence in favor of the use of seatbelts, condoms, traffic-calming infrastructure, or hard hats (the latter of which I acknowledge don't require RCTs to be validated).
These products have produced a reliable, measurable, significant change in outcomes to the extent that no reasonable person questions their efficacy impact (though even with these, there is some reasonable dispute regarding trade-offs in each case).
The intervention in question has fallen way, way short of this standard - so much so that it's difficult to make a viable comparison. Despite mandates across a literal majority of geographic landmass of the country, there is still no evidence of any benefit with regard to community transmission rates. And on the research side, only nine RCTs - and none at all regarding source control - have been conducted.
We've watched as a huge chorus of the world's experts have called for RCTs, and have been told by charlatan bureaucrats and profiteers that such a venture is comparable to a parachute RCT. Do you think that's likely to be convincing?
Meanwhile, the (typical, expected, obvious) extrapolation in the Cochrane review has been singled-out, and the waters muddied, for pointing out in sober terms what the RCTs actually said.
It has been reduced to "well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", creating an obvious catch-22 as the same data is puzzlingly used as an excuse not to perform further science on the matter.
Believe me when I say: we care about you. I wish you good health and am happy to take evidence-based steps to ensuring that the world is a healthy, vibrant place for you and people like you. But you go too far when you ask that others to ignore their own good-faith assessment of the facts at hand. And the facts are unambiguous: respiratory pathogens emerge every so often and infect nearly all members of many animal species. There does not appear to be a viable intervention to stop this, and it's not even obvious is stopping it is desirable, as these pathogens confer immunity to those infected. It's an equilibrium and part of a broader ecology in which we live.
You are loved, even by this stranger. Please don't see commitment to data-driven approaches to public health interventions as a hunger for immediate gratification; this is nearly the opposite of the reality of the situation.