zlacker

> There's no such thing as an affirmative declaration of the null hypothesis.

I strongly disagree, epistemologically speaking. You can run repeated tests and then conclude an intervention is successful. You can also run repeated tests and conclude an intervention is not successful - as you put it, no better than the null hypothesis. Or, finally, you can have just not run tests at all. There is a difference between the second and third states, and health authorities implied the second state when the third state was far more accurate.

>>hn_thr+(OP)
> You can also run repeated tests and conclude an intervention is not successful - as you put it, no better than the null hypothesis.

I don't disagree. You test to reject the null hypothesis. If you do not reject, you must accept. Eventually, hopefully, you give up on the failed alternative hypothesis and move on.

> Or, finally, you can have just not run tests at all. There is a difference between the second and third states, and health authorities implied the second state when the third state was far more accurate.

We agree completely here.