Scott Alexander reviews evidence on face mask effectiveness against coronavirus, concluding they likely offer some protection despite CDC recommendations against general public use. Longer summary

This post examines the effectiveness of face masks in preventing coronavirus transmission. It reviews theoretical reasons, case-control studies, randomized trials, and laboratory studies on surgical masks and N95 respirators. The author concludes that while not perfect, surgical masks likely offer some protection against infection in high-risk situations. The post also discusses the CDC's recommendations against mask use for the general public, suggesting this may be due to high standards of proof in medical communication rather than intentional deception. The author ultimately recommends considering mask use in high-risk situations if supplies are not limited, while emphasizing that masks are not a substitute for avoiding such situations when possible. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends psychiatry's use of 'chemical imbalance' theory, arguing it was meant to emphasize depression's biological basis rather than claiming a simple serotonin deficiency. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticisms of psychiatry's use of the 'chemical imbalance' theory of depression. He argues that psychiatrists never claimed depression was simply a serotonin deficiency, but rather a complex interaction of brain chemicals. He explains that the term 'chemical imbalance' was used to emphasize depression's biological basis and help people take it seriously, rather than viewing it as a personal failure. Scott provides evidence that serotonin and other neurotransmitters are indeed involved in depression, while acknowledging the full picture is more complicated. He concludes that framing depression in terms of brain chemistry remains useful, even if 'chemical imbalance' is no longer the best terminology. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews the psychiatric medication information site crazymeds.us, praising its quality but explaining why he can't recommend it to patients due to potential offense. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the website crazymeds.us, praising its accurate, readable, and humorous descriptions of psychiatric medications. He compares it favorably to more official sources like drugs.com, which often provide overwhelming and unhelpful information. Despite its quality, Scott explains why he can't recommend it to patients, citing concerns about its potentially offensive name and content. He explores the concept of 'negative selection' in medicine and how it affects his decision-making. The post concludes by reflecting on the trade-offs between effectiveness and political correctness in medical communication. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares two humorous medical anecdotes that highlight the potential for misunderstanding complex health information. Longer summary

Scott Alexander shares two humorous anecdotes involving medical professionals and patients, highlighting the potential for misunderstanding when discussing complex medical information. The first involves a conversation with an AIDS specialist about life expectancy for HIV patients, while the second features Scott as a doctor discussing medication for alcoholism with a patient. Both stories demonstrate how literal interpretations of medical advice can lead to absurd conclusions, emphasizing the importance of clear communication in healthcare. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques standard psychiatric responses to psychotic patients and proposes more honest, nuanced alternatives based on individual patient circumstances. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his experience at the Michigan Psychiatric Society conference, focusing on how psychiatrists should respond to psychotic patients who ask if they are believed. He critiques a prestigious psychiatrist's standard response as condescending and potentially enraging to patients. Scott then explores alternative responses he'd like to give, emphasizing honesty and acknowledging the patient's perspective. He also addresses the common question 'Do you think I'm crazy?', suggesting that the standard answers aren't always helpful and proposing more nuanced responses based on the patient's situation and personality. Shorter summary