Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hackersword 1754 days ago
Have you looked at the actual report and not the anti-vax site summation of the report?

>. The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.

I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not statistically significant", in trying to suppress the spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop.

Other stand out qualifiers from same report

>This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but might also result from differences in mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with optional requirements. Mask use requirements were limited in this sample;

>The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations.

> * First, many COVID-19 cases were self-reported by staff members and parents or guardians, and prevention strategies reported by administrators or nurses might not reflect day-to-day activities or represent all school classrooms, and *did not include an assessment of compliance* (e.g., mask use).

>* Second, the study had limited power to detect lower incidence for potentially effective, but less frequently implemented strategies, such as air filtration and purification systems; only 16 schools reported implementing this ventilation improvement.

> * Third, the response rate was low (11.6%), and some participating schools had missing information about ventilation improvements. However, incidence per 500 students was similar between participating (3.08 cases) and nonparticipating (2.90 cases) schools, suggesting any systematic bias might be low.

>* Finally, the data from this cross-sectional study cannot be used to infer causal relationships.

Basically was relying on self reporting. If a student contracted and was asymptomatic, not shown here, etc.

5 comments

> I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not statistically significant", in trying to suppress the spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop.

Statistical significance has a specific meaning in the context of hypothesis testing. It is a measure of likelihood that the observed result occurred due to a real difference between groups (rather than random chance).

It seems that they are adding up the margin of errors for 82/1461 and 87/1461, (schools responded divided by schools surveyed), giving a total margin of error of ~20% for these optional vs. mandatory masked student statistics. This is a problem with using surveys with a low response rate.

In their own words in that section, by the incident rate ratio it is statistically significant, even after having been adjusted for county level 7 day incidence.

You can try and figure it out on page 4 of the cdc report, it does not appear to be a null hypothesis test.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7021e1-H.pdf

> did not include an assessment of compliance (e.g., mask use).

This is not a rebuttal.

If you establish a policy, and people do not follow the policy, that's on you, not on the people. You don't get to compare your intervention against an ideal world and claim that "it would have worked, if only for those darned humans!"

> Basically was relying on self reporting. If a student contracted and was asymptomatic, not shown here, etc.

A great many of the pro-mask papers in 2020 that claimed to "prove" that masks work started from self-reported data (the infamous "hairdressers" CDC report comes to mind...if a customer was asymptomatic, they were ignored; there was no control, so it's impossible to know what would have happened otherwise; etc.) The standards for "proof" across the pandemic have been dismally low, and tribalism and politics have supplanted science.

The difference here is that we actually have examples from across the globe where kids weren't masked in schools, and no matter how you look at it, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. If we're going to be skeptical (we should!) let's be skeptical of every claim, and demand proof of effectiveness for our medical interventions before imposing them across all of human society.

This is like saying antibiotics don’t work because many people don’t complete their course of treatment.
It depends what you are looking at. "Do antibiotics work?" is a slightly different question than "Is prescribing antibiotics effective?".

Of course you'd want data on how people actually take them, because to make decisions you'd like to know if the result means "prescribing antibiotics just doesn't work" or "we need to figure out how to make sure people actually take the prescribed antibiotics effectively"

Exactly. A more apt analogy would be the hypothesis "do antibiotics reduce the prevalence of MRSA, if prescribed for everyone?"

We can know that antibiotics work, but still fail spectacularly when used improperly. It's important to test both.

> anti-vax site summation of the report?

New York Magazine is an “anti-vax site?”

Looking at the authors listed contributions to that site, he specifically appears to have a distinct bias and railing very specifically on something near and dear to him.

https://nymag.com/author/david-zweig/

7 articles about kids/scool/covid in last year, and one "asking the question" if vaccine is causing a dangerous heart condition in young men.

Self-report is a notoriously bad way to "study" almost anything.
I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not statistically significant", in trying to suppress the spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop.

1) Is your government adopting a comprehensives and realistic plan to achieve zero covid? (Such a policy must include 100% international travel shut-down, zero exceptions. If there are exceptions, your government does not have a zero covid policy.)

2) Is ICU or hospital usage approaching capacity in your area?

If the answer to those questions is both "no" (as it is in my jurisdiction which is requiring school kids to mask) then your statement is not true. A 21% lower incident rate is not helpful at all, everyone will still all get exposed to covid eventually.

If we can keep kids from catching it for another few months, they can get the vaccine. That’s a huge benefit.
The net-benefit of the vaccine in kids is likely to be borderline at best. That is because 1) kids are already at very, very low risk from covid 2) the side effects of the vaccine seem to be as bad or worse in the young in healthy 3) actually getting the virus allows the immune system to see a much more complete picture of the virus which may lead to better long term immunity. The kid who actually gets the real thing may end up having a better chance of being protected at age 25 or 45 than the kid who just gets the vaccine. See this article for some discussion of this issue: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58270098