Read on Twitter
at times like these, we really do need to stick to EVIDENCE. it will always be incomplete. any course of action risks unintended consequences. we have to be honest about uncertainties and wary of our own biases, /
things that seem obvious (eg face masks/generating herd immunity) might be useful. but might also have some risks (esp adverse behaviour change/lack evidence useful). many who choose to use/rely them may be aware of these and mitigate accordingly. inevitably some won& #39;t.
evidence isn& #39;t just about RCTs. eg often said & #39;didn& #39;t need RCTs to know parachutes useful& #39;. but creation parachutes involved many experiments, led to many deaths, animal and human: starting with RCT wrong - observations/literature/historical review first...
RCTs may be useful to test what better for a particular outcome (speed/landing precision/different object w same principles), whatever, and disregarding what known so far reckless. but still need to keep questioning what we know/assume. this means that as @MaryDixonWoods says
we need to ask if our lovely babies are so lovely after all. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6768008/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic... . it is harder to be critical of what we are doing when we are invested in it. human trait; understandable. dry stats in medicine contain human stories,
