Immunology and epidemiology are two different fields of expertise. I was asking specifically about immunology, a field which Danielle Fong describes as having done badly.
-
-
to be perfectly honest, when i read the original tweet, my brain subbed epidemiology for immunology. immujnolohists have done fine afaik
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
What’s the evidence that epidemiologists in general have done badly? (Expecting them to know all about COVID-19 before it arrived wouldn’t be reasonable.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
biggest three goofs were expecting temp checks at airports to work, resisting airborne spread hypotheses even after the diamond princess and expecting the lethality contagiousness tradeoffs for variants to dominate and prevent a more severe, more contagious variant. really dumb
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What does the last one mean? I don't think I've seen epidemiologists claim that variants would tend to be less contagious or less lethal. If anything, the epidemiologists I follow on Twitter have been consistently saying that more lethal or contagious variants were a possibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
🤷🏻♀️ Retweeted 🤷🏻♀️
i can’t say that i have a grat view on what the epidemiology community as a whole thought about mutation, despite my finding personal resistance to it, but in this article in escience a practitioner describes extraordinary resistance to it.https://twitter.com/DanielleFong/status/1428833098460958722 …
🤷🏻♀️ added,
🤷🏻♀️ @DanielleFong"extraordinary resistance to the idea in the scientific community." wish said community could do a root cause analysis on this science mag finally saying (mainstreaming?) what i've been saying about this all along (gdi...) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/new-sars-cov-2-variants-have-changed-pandemic-what-will-virus-do-next … pic.twitter.com/02uQGgtnJwShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That’s not an epidemiological question. That’s a virological/biological question (these are separate fields). And I have to say, I’m highly dubious that virologists thought mutations were unlikely. “Mutation rates” are a thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
well then maybe you weren’t paying attention at the time. people in the field, some very prominent, very persuasive and influential people, were basically insisting that because this ahd a rate rate of mutation much slower than the flu, mutations were not really a concern
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @ValoisDuBins and
there were individual exceptions, but there was an epistemic lag of like 8-9 months on key issues, like presymptomatic spread, airborne spread, and mutation. this slow response has ossified into policy, too
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Remaining agnostic/uncertain on those issues until there is evidence makes sense as science. For policy, if you're not sure if there is presymptomatic/airborne spread, you should *act* as though there is. That's the major failing of the pandemic: bad cost/benefit and decisions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
i feel like that’s absolutely a failing of the discipline to not understand they need to make judgments under uncertainty when they are charged with understanding and exponential threat. every step, airborne spread, asymptomatic spread, mutation, long covid, major resistance 
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.
