Nyt david leonhardt newsletter8/9/2023 ![]() ![]() Jefferson is a senior associate tutor in the department of continuing education at the University of Oxford. Throwing caution-and facts-to the wind, Stephens turned to Tom Jefferson, one of the review's 12 authors. ![]() Likewise before Stephens published his column, the medical community had warned that anti-maskers were misusing the Cochrane review to support their broader agenda. "We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.".The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect." "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks."The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.".A cursory reading of the Cochrane review abstract and authors' summary revealed that it expressly-and repeatedly-declined to support Stephens' position: But Stephens claimed to have "unambiguous" proof from a recent Cochrane Library review that mandates didn't work at all. The fact is that masks and mask mandates limited the spread of COVID. Over the past three weeks, Stephens and the New York Times have added to that confusion. Both-sidesing critical mitigation measures such as masks-even when one side lacks serious factual support-has undermined science and created mass confusion. When the next airborne pandemic strikes, the disinformation currently surrounding COVID will paralyze policymakers and the public. ![]() Shortly thereafter, the review's editor-in-chief issued a statement that Person A and many commentators had misrepresented the review's conclusions.īret Stephens' February 21 column on mask mandates created this scandal at the New York Times. Two weeks later, you doubled down on your position. The medical community condemned Person A's false characterization of the review and highlighted the review's methodological limitations and failings that your column ignored. He characterized a medical review in which he participated (along with 11 others) as supporting your position, although the review itself stated that it didn't. Your opening "hook" for readers was Person A's inaccurate and misleading statements. Your recent column about COVID relied on dubious sourcing, specifically, Person A, who agreed with your personal views on the issue. You write for the most influential newspaper in America. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |