Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-08 08:11:04 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 7F7E67E98C0560B30E7AC89F5689C1E16E83B52CDFF69559B8039A8FF037F757
Participant Details

Original Note:

Einzige Quelle ist umstrittenes RS-Review das einen möglichen Nutzen („suggests“) selbst bezweifelt: „Studies suffered from a critical risk of bias. effects were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision.“ Hochwertigere Studien finden keinen signifikanten Nutzen. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/impact-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-on-covid-19-transmission/the-royal-society-covid-19-examining-the-effectiveness-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-report.pdf https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full?utm_source=mp-fotoscapes

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1744058358485655988
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 7F7E67E98C0560B30E7AC89F5689C1E16E83B52CDFF69559B8039A8FF037F757
  • createdAtMillis - 1704701464595
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17440583584856559887F7E67E98C0560B30E7AC89F5689C1E16E83B52CDFF69559B8039A8FF037F757