This just came in the mail today:
Andrew –
A reminder that you have been invited to Dialog 2022. Space is limited to 240 participants and registration closes on March 16.
By the end of the retreat, you can expect to have gotten to know 50 people well (see a partial list below).
Click here to register. Your registration has been highly discounted. Use discount code INSIGHT22.
. . .
Here’s the background for those who happened not to be reading the blog on the day this appeared.
It’s not too late for you to join and be one of these 240 very special people! Sure, it says, “This invitation is only for Andrew Gelman and is non-transferable,” but I bet they’ll take your $16,846 if you ask really really nicely.
Why do you think you were invited?
I dunno, maybe Grover thought I’d have something interesting to say?
It’s also possible that Anne-Marie Slaughter wants some foreign policy tips, or that the rabbi wants to quiz me on some fine points of theology.
I don’t need to pay that amount to talk to Anne-Marie Slaughter. With all these planned events, we’ve underappreciated ‘serendipity’ and made ‘opportunity’ the main objective in just about all of our engagements.
Hi Sameera –
Have you seen Vinay interview people he disagrees strongly with? Seems to me he (always?) likes interviewing people who won’t push back on his arguments.
I stopped paying attention to him after he blocked me on Twitter – for expressing disagreement with some of his views.
I never understsnd why people who make a big deal out of “censorship” and “free speech” turn around and block people for disagreeing with them.
Thanks Sameera –
> He makes good points too.
I also feel that sometiems he does make good points. Unlike a lot of what I see on social media re the pandemic, at least at times I think he offers cogent and logical analysis.
But I have a real problem with how he presents his takes – which I think is reflected in a tendency to only engage with people who don’t push back against his conclusions.
I watched some of that video, and on the one hand I think he did make some valid points re the polarizaiton on masks (more so his guest, but regardless), but on the other hand he was content to argue against straw men or inaccurate characterizations of the range of views. Take his argument (that you picked up on and that I don’t exactly disagree with) that public health agencies should have conducted large-scale RCTs to assess the efficacy before mandating (or even, really, making strong recommendations). He mocks the response that he doesn’t really let a lack of RCTs interfere with his formation of strong views re the efficacy of mask-wearing, and says “That’s just not how the real world works” (paraphrasing), and ignores that not recommending masks is just as much of a policy as recommending them (particularly considering that large segments of the population suported thinks like mask mandates and recommendations).
I think those questions are much more complicated than he allows for in his analysis, so it’s frustrating or me that he doesn’t give his viewpoints (which again, I think are worth engaging with) a full interrogation. In the end, I think that only undermines the validity of his advocacy.
> I may be more tolerant of bad behavior if it is accompanied by good insights. Generally, people express a good deal of cynicism on Twitter.
Maybe. I tend to think that one’s behavior is fairly inexricable from insights.
> Lastly, I think Prasad is correct to assert that cluster randomized trials should have been conducted as to the mitigation measures. Too many confounding variables have intervened.
As has been discussed in a recent thread, RCTs certainly have great value, but that value is quite limited and often effectively misused – particularly in a context as dymaic as an ongoing and fast-moving pandemic with a novel virus. In the end, while I agree that public health institutions should have focused on creating more, I find how he leverages the issue of RCTs to be mostly specious. It looks to me like simply leveraging RCTs, selectively, to support a poor form of advocacy that doesn’t really enage deeply with the issues at hand (even if it includes some compelling arguments).
Hi Joshua,
Vinay Prasad does not suggest RCT’s for masking. Rather, he encourages Cluster Randomized Trials. I believe that they can be leveraged in this pandemic far more easily than RCTs.
https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/chapters/design/experimental-designs-randomization-schemes-top/cluster-randomized-trials/
My issue with many of the COVID expert interchanges and articles is that they draw upon weak analogies to make their case. I just cringe when subsets attempt them. Vinay Prasad is better at drawing them than most others I’ve come across.
Vinay Prasad has a very substantial background in clinical trials, it seems. He’s written two books. I plan to read them soon.
I don’t agree with him on all counts. And when I disagree, I do tweet my disagreement to him.
Sameera –
> Vinay Prasad does not suggest RCT’s for masking. Rather, he encourages Cluster Randomized Trials. I believe that they can be leveraged in this pandemic far more easily than RCTs.
I guess I’d say it seems to me that cluster randomized trials are a subset of RCTs and so I’m not so sure how that’s a sharp distinction, but there’s plenty of examples of him explicitly encouraging RCTs. I could provide examples but a Google will turn many examples up.
But sure, there does seem to be reasons that CRTs would make sense in this particular context.
BTW – I thought this was a pretty good overview on masks that he co-authored. I just think it’s unfortunate that he mixes some really sub-standard and quite partisan stuff in with quality analysis:
https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2021/2022/how-effective-are-cloth-face-masks#
Hi Joshua,
I am aware that Prasad blocks individuals on Twitter. I do find that odd, given that he encourages debate. There, I’m with you. He makes good points too. Frankly, nearly everyone has shown different sides of themselves in different contexts. Braggadocio is not becoming. And there is a fair amount of that on social media. The desire to stand out is strong.
I may be more tolerant of bad behavior if it is accompanied by good insights. Generally, people express a good deal of cynicism on Twitter.
Lastly, I think Prasad is correct to assert that cluster randomized trials should have been conducted as to the mitigation measures. Too many confounding variables have intervened.
Joshua,
Yes, initially Vinay Prasad referred to RCTs, more generally. So that’s why I explored the two terms further. Cluster Randomized Trials can be classified as subset of RCTs. More recently, he has been more precise.
He has a unique manner of expression, reflecting, in part, his cultural heritage too. And to be fair, some of his views are now being incorporated into CDC policies on masks.