A new #Cochrane Review on physical interventions against respiratory viruses is making the rounds. The review focuses exclusively on #RCTs and finds that in the entire scientific literature, there are 78 studies with a bearing on the various questions asked. (1/n)
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6
Based on what I have seen during the pandemic, many people poorly equipped to interpret this sort of selective summary because they rely on a type of default thinking:
Pick a hypothesis that wins by default (e.g. a specific physical intervention is harmful/non-beneficial). Then once new studies become available, check if they give a strong and rigorous enough reason to reject the default; if not, keep the default. (Similar to how, in a court of law, the accused is by default innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty.)
This can be contrasted with a more Bayesian way of thinking:
No hypothesis wins by default. Decide on some initial degree of belief in a hypothesis and its negation. Carefully weigh new evidence for an against and incrementally update the degrees of belief. (2/n)
In the summer 2021, I collected a lot of literature on this and wrote up some thoughts. Much of it applies to the reception of the latest #Cochrane's summary too.
https://intemittdefault.wordpress.com/2021/07/10/evidence-decisions-and-default-reasoning/
(3/n, n=3)
Found an interview with the lead author of the #Cochrane review. He is a good example of someone engaging in default thinking:
"[...] it's a complete subversion of the ‘precautionary principle’ which states that you should do nothing unless you have reasonable evidence that benefits outweigh the harms."
https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-lead-author-of-new-cochrane?utm_campaign=post
Commentary by Naomi Oreskes
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-a-highly-publicized-covid-mask-analysis/