I'm not a medical expert or an expert in statistical analysis... In fact probably not an expert in anything even remotely close to being relevant. However even I can see this study is so short on controls and long on all sorts of possible and unaccounted for variables. I did teach school for a number of years...and I know a lot of things could impact the source data. For instance... What snacks were brought from home and what was served in the lunchroom that may have impacted the amount of bodily eliminations on the test days? What activities were going on in classrooms that may have impacted the number of kids going to the bathroom at school versus waiting until the end of the day or until home? Or, even more potentially impactful on the conclusions, what is the normal fluctuation of the virus found in the wastewater over time with no masking or with full masking? I'm amazed that anyone would look at that and feel proud and that they did a good job. Doesn't make sense.
I look at this, and other similar “studies” as nothing more than propaganda. I also wonder who would buy this junk....BUT
There’s a tech website I once enjoyed - “Ars Technica”. (Condé Nast)
Every junk “study” VP roasts inevitably ends up on their site being touted as incontrovertible proof regarding masking/forever boosters etc etc. the comment section eats it up.
I’m sure many other sites do the same....it’s so disappointing to see the Uber politicization of every issue.
VP, you're a professor at a respected university, can you invite the authors to a class to discuss their methods and conclusions? I imagine your students might have some relevant questions. We'll pay for the video.
I'm not sure it's worse. The fact that using wastewater could mean that a few or 1000 kids were positive, is reason alone to toss this in the shitter (The puns are kind of fun, though).
While the "shit paper" is indeed magnificent in it's ridiculousness, I still give the edge to the Boston Mask study for the following reasons:
1) The authors failed to disclose they authored an editorial during the study period imploring Boston school districts to bring back masks [1] and successfully ran a change.org petition to do so [2]
2) In a case of obvious data drudging, you can see that before the mask mandates were even lifted the cohort which remove masks already had a higher case rate showing obvious confounder was causing the difference prior to experiment
3) When confronted with questions on #2 and why they didn't do a better job accounting for testing differences between the wealthy school districts that removed masks and the poorer districts which kept them, the author argued we should just "trust her because she has a PhD" [3]
4) The authors weren't aware that 11 of the schools they counted as "masked schools" in fact had exemptions to unmask [4]
5) All of this was published, uncritically, in the NEJM. *Chef's kiss* to epi ellie for bullshitting what was considered a respected journal.
I saw this posted in the "Daily Diagnosis" from ASCP this morning... First thing I thought reading it was oh I just can't wait for VP to see this! You did not disappoint lol.
I can never remember whether we are supposed to believe it is obvious from first principles that masks defintitely work (see e.g. 1000 raging comments on the Bret Stephens NYT column, or CDC director saying they don't need trials because everyone knows they work) OR whether it is not obvious at all, but maybe if you look really hard in some tortured observational study you might see a small empirical effect. Those are very contradictory! Like, a world where a study like this is even needed is not a world where it is sufficently obvious a priori that masks definitely work. We don't have people getting headlines by proving a little bit more every day that the world is round, because no one feels the need to.
I have long observed how social and behavioral science likes to cherry-pick studies to laud and ignore the credible, most meaningful studies. That it’s happening in medicine does not surprise me in the least, but it is indeed concerning. This is why what you and your colleagues speaking out is so critical. Thank you!
Did they say they observed masking from the time schools let out until all were gone? What about the rest of the day? And how does what they found lead to their conclusion that masking in school will lead to a significant decrease in spread of infection? Their conclusion sounds more like wishful thinking.
It's like Jack Nicholson's Joker said about Gotham in the '89 Batman: "This town needs an enema." This country needs an enema...a massive catharsis of dubious and duplicitous public health administrators, academic elites, and research goobs. We need truth above all else! These dangerously prideful clowns will stop at nothing to prove their points...even knowingly publish shit data on a thoroughly disproven stance. Give it up, already.
Brandolinis Law reigns supreme, as the Gish Gallop continues.
You just spent more effort debunking this (literal) shit than the authors put forth crafting it.
I'm not a medical expert or an expert in statistical analysis... In fact probably not an expert in anything even remotely close to being relevant. However even I can see this study is so short on controls and long on all sorts of possible and unaccounted for variables. I did teach school for a number of years...and I know a lot of things could impact the source data. For instance... What snacks were brought from home and what was served in the lunchroom that may have impacted the amount of bodily eliminations on the test days? What activities were going on in classrooms that may have impacted the number of kids going to the bathroom at school versus waiting until the end of the day or until home? Or, even more potentially impactful on the conclusions, what is the normal fluctuation of the virus found in the wastewater over time with no masking or with full masking? I'm amazed that anyone would look at that and feel proud and that they did a good job. Doesn't make sense.
I look at this, and other similar “studies” as nothing more than propaganda. I also wonder who would buy this junk....BUT
There’s a tech website I once enjoyed - “Ars Technica”. (Condé Nast)
Every junk “study” VP roasts inevitably ends up on their site being touted as incontrovertible proof regarding masking/forever boosters etc etc. the comment section eats it up.
I’m sure many other sites do the same....it’s so disappointing to see the Uber politicization of every issue.
VP, you're a professor at a respected university, can you invite the authors to a class to discuss their methods and conclusions? I imagine your students might have some relevant questions. We'll pay for the video.
This study was published in a medical journal???
The Boston Mask Study was published in the NEJM and it’s even worse.
I'm not sure it's worse. The fact that using wastewater could mean that a few or 1000 kids were positive, is reason alone to toss this in the shitter (The puns are kind of fun, though).
While the "shit paper" is indeed magnificent in it's ridiculousness, I still give the edge to the Boston Mask study for the following reasons:
1) The authors failed to disclose they authored an editorial during the study period imploring Boston school districts to bring back masks [1] and successfully ran a change.org petition to do so [2]
2) In a case of obvious data drudging, you can see that before the mask mandates were even lifted the cohort which remove masks already had a higher case rate showing obvious confounder was causing the difference prior to experiment
3) When confronted with questions on #2 and why they didn't do a better job accounting for testing differences between the wealthy school districts that removed masks and the poorer districts which kept them, the author argued we should just "trust her because she has a PhD" [3]
4) The authors weren't aware that 11 of the schools they counted as "masked schools" in fact had exemptions to unmask [4]
5) All of this was published, uncritically, in the NEJM. *Chef's kiss* to epi ellie for bullshitting what was considered a respected journal.
________________
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/11/opinion/its-too-soon-lift-school-mask-mandate/
[2] https://twitter.com/EpiEllie/status/1429102872470433795
[3] https://twitter.com/EpiEllie/status/1557497452781096960
[4] Compare this list to the list in the paper of masked schools https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-schools-mask-mandate-lifted-list-dese/
I dc'd my NEJM, but they keep sending me issues...it's like that stain that won't go away.
I saw this posted in the "Daily Diagnosis" from ASCP this morning... First thing I thought reading it was oh I just can't wait for VP to see this! You did not disappoint lol.
What a bunch of crap.
I can never remember whether we are supposed to believe it is obvious from first principles that masks defintitely work (see e.g. 1000 raging comments on the Bret Stephens NYT column, or CDC director saying they don't need trials because everyone knows they work) OR whether it is not obvious at all, but maybe if you look really hard in some tortured observational study you might see a small empirical effect. Those are very contradictory! Like, a world where a study like this is even needed is not a world where it is sufficently obvious a priori that masks definitely work. We don't have people getting headlines by proving a little bit more every day that the world is round, because no one feels the need to.
Seems to coincide with the rolling down the hill of our country. We got lazy. And now this.
I have long observed how social and behavioral science likes to cherry-pick studies to laud and ignore the credible, most meaningful studies. That it’s happening in medicine does not surprise me in the least, but it is indeed concerning. This is why what you and your colleagues speaking out is so critical. Thank you!
Great synopsis. The delusion runs deep.
Did they say they observed masking from the time schools let out until all were gone? What about the rest of the day? And how does what they found lead to their conclusion that masking in school will lead to a significant decrease in spread of infection? Their conclusion sounds more like wishful thinking.
Does that graphic suggest that vaccination increased the chances of +ve wastewater results? I might be reading it wrong, so please correct me.
It certainly looks like masks are better than vaccination. At this point, that might be true, as neither seem to be capable of preventing infection.
Another brick in the path that leads to the dumbing down of American Medicine. 🤦🏻♂️
"Why are we even talking about this?"
It's like Jack Nicholson's Joker said about Gotham in the '89 Batman: "This town needs an enema." This country needs an enema...a massive catharsis of dubious and duplicitous public health administrators, academic elites, and research goobs. We need truth above all else! These dangerously prideful clowns will stop at nothing to prove their points...even knowingly publish shit data on a thoroughly disproven stance. Give it up, already.