to be perfectly honest, when i read the original tweet, my brain subbed epidemiology for immunology. immujnolohists have done fine afaik
-
-
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 -
i don’t think this is a relevant distinction in fields,
@valoisdubins, the contagiousness and other properties of the virus are intimately tied to its epidemic and hence epidemiology1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
See, this is my basic point: I think you’re criticising fields without understanding what they do. It’s a kind of epistemological trespass, to coin a phrase.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
yeah i think you’re just totally wrong about this. that’s like criticizing a physicist for getting math wrong, and then defending them by saying — this is math, this is the domain of mathematicians. they are necessarily intimately tied, and it is a mistake to divide it so finely
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, it isn’t. You’re conflating different fields of study. You’ve been accusing epidemiologists of making mistakes, but it turns out your bête noir is Angela Rasmussen, a virologist. Only you won’t tell me what paper of hers you object to.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
wow, listen, maybe it’s because i don’t want to get goaded into fights. 
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.
