Interpretation 1: there is a goldilocks zone of healthy fear about COVID Interpretation 2: sounds wild but: accurate, non-sensational, non-denialist scientific info about this disease might lead to precisely the sort of public behavior that's most likely to limit its transmission
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Trust in academia on the right is roughly 0% bc there are almost no Trump-supporting professors or peer reviewers. No one on the right will believe this, and the left already believed it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Should we trust the models that have been wrong since day 1? I get it we needed to self quarantine to get under wraps. However, not one “scientist” will come out and say we probably over did it. But let’s take a poll on Fox News viewers while every night CNN keeps the death toll
-
*over*did it? I think we under-did it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I strongly suspect (1) has got the causality backwards. They try to filter out the confounding, but people who are more likely to watch a channel just because it's a lower number on the TV dial are *also* a self-selected (or at least confounded) group.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.