• apotheotic(she/they)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m losing my mind that this person is constantly going

      “COCHRANE IS TRUSTWORTHY. THEY SAY MASK BAD”

      And then you point out that cochrane did not say that, and have emphasised the opposite. And they ignore this as if its fake news 😂

      • Piers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        To be fair to them. It’s not long since I pointed that out. They seemingly haven’t seen my comments at all yet. Maybe they’ll read them, read the statement, review their understanding of the paper and express that their perspective has changed. It’s too soon to say that definitely wont happen! (So let’s enjoy imagining it will while we can.)

    • Chipthemonk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.

      So, did they change it? (Spoiler alert, No, they didn’t)

    • Chipthemonk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You people seriously just don’t get it. One editor in chief wrote this piece. It’s not all of Cochrane. Cochrane is a journal. You clearly don’t understand academic processes. The article was peer reviewed by a panel of experts and written by numerous other experts. The author you are bringing up is solely one person that has an opinion on the matter due to the political ramifications of the article’s findings.

      It’s annoying having to explain academic processes to the general public who don’t have a clue.