Opinion, disguised as fact

Re: Exaggerating COVID deaths: California vs. Florida | Opinion, Aug. 30

I am responding to “Another Viewpoint” by Drs. Andy Lazris and Erik Rifkin. They make an excellent point about the use of data and the importance of conducting research that consumers can trust when making health care decisions.

They give examples of how to interpret some data and they draw important distinctions between correlation and causation. They point out that there are no controlled studies with reliable data to support the use of masks to prevent spread of COVID-19. They come across as serious, objective scientists.

However, their thinly-veiled agenda is revealed when they describe measures to curb COVID-19 spread in California as draconian. They point out that data on the benefits of masks is wanting, but fail to mention that the risk of masking is negligible, so any benefit may be worth it.

They point to the importance of randomized placebo controlled studies — the gold standard in research. Do they suggest that some groups with masks, and others without, be exposed to the virus or a placebo to see if masks work? There are ethical prohibitions against that.

They ignore that surgeons would never go into the operating room without a mask. Why? Masks must have a benefit to reduce the spread of disease. Furthermore, the pandemic is a complex public health problem and being able to design studies that clarify the multifactorial nature of disease, spread, prevention and cure was not mentioned in their essay.

It’s important to understand data, but it may be more important to recognize when opinion is disguised as fact.

Allan Ribbler, Fort Lauderdale