I understand how public can misunderstand this phrase but scientifically it is clear and justified.
I looking at that page and sometimes “no evidence” means that we haven't found the evidence yet. Some people are desperate and want all the studies done immediately. They evaluate the risk if the theory is real or not.
But for scientists the desire to reach certain outcome is actually counterproductive as it can introduce bias.
1) We had no evidence of covid being airborne and then we found this evidence.
2) We had no evidence that masks help and then we found no evidence.
Two different theories, two different outcomes.
The reporters could write better for lay public explaining that “no evidence” means that currently we don't have evidence but could be found later or that “no evidence” is actually that we have a lot of evidence that is indicating in some other direction and the chances of new evidence that rejects those findings are smaller but still could happen.
Russia had no military strength to take over Kyiv and yet it tried to do that. Intelligence tried to warn about that and most European governments ignored that.
The theory is that Russia has nothing to lose. Their plan may not be to win but to force the breakdown of NATO. If attacking the Baltic countries will not provoke immediate reaction from NATO, it would mean that NATO was empty promises.
Or maybe this warning is false. We have no way of knowing but it makes sense to be prepared for this eventuality.
>Russia had no military strength to take over Kyiv and yet it tried to do that.
If only there were prizes in war for trying instead of succeeding.
>Their plan may not be to win but to force the breakdown of NATO.
It's much easier to force NATO/EU breakdown through soft means like political destabilization. Direct military attacks only cause the blocks to strengthen: see the ascension of Sweden and Finland after the attack.
The important conclusion here is that Russia tried to influence the Baltic States by political destabilization (they had plans for Russia as a second official language, reducing importance of NATO) and it failed.
Russia seemed to have more success in Ukraine but ultimately they also failed when Ukraine appeared moving towards the West. That's why Russia ultimately decided to start a military operation, i.e., a war.
Of course, you could think that Russia would never dare to start a war with a NATO countries. Definitely the risk is lower. But we didn't believe it would start a war in Ukraine either. It is possible that any country can experience some kind of political destabilization (even without meddling by Russia) and they Russia could use the opportunity. So, it is important to be ready.
Ukraine and Baltic countries are not the same. This comparison is false.
No wonder the whole world went mad and demanded vaccine mandates for vaccine that does not even prevent the spread of infection. Too much reliance on “experts” that repeat mindlessly “vaccines good” instead of looking into details of a particular vaccine.
I don't think that there is a big mystery. He might have lost his memory due to stress, fatigue, lack of sleep, use of drugs (such as diazepam) etc.
Maybe he was supposed to change flights in Copenhagen to somewhere else, to Russia or Israel but in his confused state he lost his passport at the airport after the security check. Then tried to board his airplane and somehow managed to board another airplane. The airport workers and flight attendants are supposed to guard for such cases but sometimes they also make mistakes and don't notice someone walking into restricted area etc. It happens, very rarely but happens even in the best guarded airports.
> Ochigava did not remember how he got on the plane in Copenhagen. Ochigava also would not explain how or when he got to Copenhagen or what he was doing there. When asked how he got through security in Copenhagen, Ochigava claimed he did not remember how he went through security without a ticket.
he didn’t know why he was in copenhagen, which would suggest a minimal at best awareness of itinerary. was he in a daze when he got the ticket? nobody checked for his name on a connecting flight?
there is an explanation, but not enough data to assume this a normal event. or otherwise. not yet. right now it is just very, very strange.
like what exactly was he on to make him think taking the cabin crew’s chocolate was ok? highly unlikely some just fell in his lap. he was in an addled state where he couldn’t stop eating and wasn’t sleeping, and though sleep deprivation was no joke, he navigated the airport successfully without attracting enough attention to keep him off of the plane, then stole chocolate? sure, sleepier, international flight, perhaps.
but there’s a lot of suspension of disbelief required to make this a series of coincidences. so far.
Diazepam can sometimes cause people to act like that. They are not sleeping but are completely on autopilot, even driving a car etc. and afterwards they don't remember what they were doing.
Some people are afraid to fly and use diazepam to reduce anxiety.
It might not be what happened here but this would be my first assumption. He somehow got on the wrong flight and lost his memory due to use of drugs or stress.
Lithium (an active substance) is a drug, Priadel (a brand version of lithium carbonate) is a medicine.
Drug and medicine is specifically distinguished in medical science. But again, in many contexts this distinction doesn't matter and most people don't even know the difference. It doesn't mean that we have no idea what is a drug or what is a medicine.
It just shows that precise definitions are not that important in medical science.
We all know what is a drug. And there are border cases where our ideas of drug and food overlap. It is only a small issue for regulators to decide what regulations to apply. But for doctors it is not a problem.
Saline infusion technically is not an active drug either. And yet it can be regulated as one because obviously quality standards are important for infusions.
Something I've noticed when reading about people in history or even more modern indigenous people is that the clear distinction between "food" and "medicine" seems very new and peculiar to our time & culture. It's obviously a useful differentiation a lot of the time, but not always and at least sometimes it seems useful to not apply it.
I use cheap airlines and they are bargain in most cases.
Sometimes you get a problem, extra luggage fees, unplanned check-in at the airport etc. so that you are forced to pay much more. But counting all together they are still cheaper and more affordable.
People complain when they have to pay but forget to mention those times they paid much less.
Or maybe those people have higher needs, more luggage, less experienced with online bookings etc. Well, they are not happy that they have to pay more but for those who travel light, book, check in online and go, can still benefit. Why should we force them to pay more by forcing airlines to provide services that they don't really need?
I am too very happy with cheap airlines including Ryanair. It is true that their customer service may not be brilliant but they make it more affordable to travel. I think it is a reasonable compromise that benefits us all.
If you book via a travel agency you sometimes may find poor service in case you need some changes. A friend needed to add a luggage to the booking and the travel agency refused to help. He had to do at the airport for double price.
He couldn't do it online because making changes in Ryanair booking requires some information how the booking was made, for example, the email address. He was unable to obtain any of this information from the travel agency.
If he had known that he was able to update booking's e-mail address though this process of online verification, he would have saved at least 40 euros (minus €0.59 online verification fee).
Ryanair couldn't have made adding luggage without requiring at least some confirmation that it is done by the flyer. If you check online and proceed directly to the gate, you may not be aware that someone (a terrorist or drug smuggler) has added luggage to your reservation, checked it in luggage drop point and collected it at the destination airport without you being aware.
Of course, Ryanair could have a different business model where they don't charge double price for adding luggage at the airport. But that's the whole point – their business model reduces need for staff at the airport and thus they can offer lower prices.
But this would not be an issue, if travel agencies were providing better service too.
Why do people use travel agencies? For me it would just be another layer adding expense, mistakes and complexities. I'm guessing people use them thinking they will reduce those things.
In EU you will end up under Package travel directive. Which means extra protections, and single point of communication. Like when COVID hit and travel recommendations were issued. My whole holiday of hotel+flight got cancelled, and I got automatic refund for whole thing. Just had to give them by account number.
It makes life simpler in cases when flights or hotel gets cancelled and agency is responsible for handling things.
There are times when booking through Ryanair over their app gives €X price, but through some 3rd party like Kiwi I might find e.g. €(X*0.5).
However, even though I almost always fly with just a small bag, I still might hesitate taking the 3rd party service because they insist on doing stuff like checking in "for me", which I don't need (since that is a trivial process), and I have experienced them not sending the boarding pass in the time I arrived at the airport.
It's nice that they are cheaper until you realize that you've booked a connecting flight through Kiwi and then realize that Ryanair doesn't offer that service, so you'll be picking up your checked luggage at the layover and the queuing again to check the luggage for the next destination. You miss the connecting flight, good luck with Kiwi. They're notorious for their poor handling of this exact scenario, since the money will have to come out of their pockets. Ryanair can only be held responsible for delays of the first flight.
Sometimes they do search on travel agency website and accept the option, not realizing that at this point they could have booked directly from an airline's website.
I have no clue why anyone has used one in atleast the pass decade, but I can remember when it was a thing because the internet didn't exist. Even printed guide books would be at least a year out of date the day they went to press... booking travel to an area you didn't know was...difficult.
In medicine you cannot distinguish. It is all about the intervention and not about some theoretical best-case scenario.
The intervention is to ask people to wear masks. People comply as they do in real real life and then we measure the results. There was no reliable evidence that this made any noticeable difference.
Now you can change the intervention – instead of asking and mandating masks as we did, we could educate masks wearers more. Unfortunately we have no evidence that it helps.
Perhaps masking could help to an individual wearer? Alas, we didn't collect such evidence either.
Some studies are lab based. In those masks had some effect. But that's not how people use masks in real life, so these results don't mean much.
> But that's not how people use masks in real life, so they don't mean much.
I think saying "Using X is effective, but only if you actually use X" is obvious. The thing people want to know is "do masks stop the virus" which is an entirely different question from "How many people will wear masks", which is a different question from "What is the effectiveness of interventions to promote mask wearing"
The first question is pointless for someone responsible for public health. People want the answer to it because they don't want to think about all these related issues and have simplistic idea that they can protect themselves. But chances are their compliance is exactly the same as among people in those studies.
Therefore the real question is how effective is the intervention. It will be (or should be) asked by people responsible with public health policies.
P.S. Cochrane group is not for giving scientific answers to individual people. Its main aim is to evaluate the evidence of different treatments and provide guidance to policy makers and healthcare authorities.
If you are responsible for public health and the answer to the first question is "no" then you have no need to ask the other two. Figuring out what we can do to get people to do what works is important too, but it's not the only thing that matters. People can be educated and their habits changed.
We have similar problems getting schizophrenics to take their meds and getting communities with high rates of open defecation to use toilets, but nobody suggests that we give up on antipsychotics or sanitation facilities.
The first answer is too vague to have a meaningful answer in case.
Every other treatment in medicine including schizophrenia is tested how it works in practice. It is incurable disease and the treatments have many side-effects. Thus the question becomes not “does this medicine cure schizophrenia” but “does this treatment works better than placebo or another treatment?”. When studies are completed, we gather evidence by monitoring real life experience with this treatment.
> Every other treatment in medicine including schizophrenia is tested how it works in practice.
Medicine is tested according to how it works when people actually take it. People participating in research studies who fail to take their medications (or their placebo for that matter) are kicked from the program and their data is typically discarded entirely.
In fact, often clinical trials are statistically analysed by intention-to-treat, including all people who have been randomised even if they later don't receive the treatment.
Per-protocol-analysis (including only people who follow the study protocol) can also be used but it is more prone to bias.
Besides, with masks it is not simply wearing or not wearing a mask. Even a very diligent mask wearers may wear it in a way that makes it less effective without being aware of that.
In short, when the doctor prescribes a medicine it is important to understand the factors why the patient may not take the medicine as prescribed. If the real life situation is that most people take medicine in a way that makes it ineffective and so much that the clinical trial cannot find significant effect, then he shouldn't prescribe it. It is just a waste of resources and giving people false hopes.
> In fact, often clinical trials are statistically analysed by intention-to-treat
Fair! That said, intention-to-treat is more likely to greatly underestimate the efficacy of a treatment when non-adherence is expected to be high/isn't being monitored.
> In short, when the doctor prescribes a medicine it is important to understand the factors why the patient may not take the medicine as prescribed.
I agree, but the solution is to help the patient overcome those barriers not to throw out the medication. It's to give people the information and tools they need to follow the treatment. People who wear masks could be trained on how to properly fit them, take them on/off, store them, replace them, etc. The real life situation around masking included basically none of that. "Wear a mask" was basically all people were told.
It doesn't make sense to fault/dismiss masking if a large part of the population isn't wearing them because they were tricked into believing that masks don't work or that masks will actually make them sick, and another large part of the population wears them, but wasn't shown how to do it correctly.
It's important to be aware that those things are going on within the population, but the next step from there is still "educate the public" and not "abandon all efforts at masking" - at least not until a more accessible alternative which is also as effective as masking becomes available
The population was told that masks certainly work, in certain areas mandates made sure that compliance is very high >95%.
If we still could not find reliable evidence that masks are effective, then the policy makers should be told that.
There is very little you can do to improve mask wearing technique. We certainly explained these things to doctors, it made no difference in results. If you want to make more controlled studies, you can do that. Don't hold your breath however.
No, we should not continue requiring wearing masks because you are only doing that out of hope. That's not how we do things in medicine. It would be unethical. There are many medicines that show effectiveness in the lab but fail in clinical trials. We don't demand for those medicines to be used until we find more effective alternative. Many unknown factors could cause ineffectiveness in clinical trials, we don't need to understand all of them, just the fact that the drug failed to demonstrate effectiveness and safety in real life settings.
>> a more accessible alternative which is also as effective as masking becomes available
The point is masking was not effective. It has not shown effectiveness anywhere in the real world.
There is very much plenty of fairly reliable evidence that masks work. And the better the compliance the better they work. In nurse studies you get much better results than in population studies, for instance. Now that I'm looking I'm hard pressed to find any studies that go against this conclusion.
I looking at that page and sometimes “no evidence” means that we haven't found the evidence yet. Some people are desperate and want all the studies done immediately. They evaluate the risk if the theory is real or not.
But for scientists the desire to reach certain outcome is actually counterproductive as it can introduce bias.
1) We had no evidence of covid being airborne and then we found this evidence.
2) We had no evidence that masks help and then we found no evidence.
Two different theories, two different outcomes.
The reporters could write better for lay public explaining that “no evidence” means that currently we don't have evidence but could be found later or that “no evidence” is actually that we have a lot of evidence that is indicating in some other direction and the chances of new evidence that rejects those findings are smaller but still could happen.