It was a thread about bias in research and the issues with population prevalence estimates. I think it is perfectly clear what was meant, although I'm not really surprised any more at academic incivility on Twitter/elsewhere
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BallouxFrancois @DrZoeHyde
So, just to clarify, your response to the possibility of a claim was to RT an anonymous twitter account with a single paragraph of a scientific paper without a link/context, with a strawman of the true argument?
4 replies 1 retweet 27 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @DrZoeHyde
@skepticalzebra may be anonymous on twitter, which I have a lot of understanding for. Though, she is a clinician, with a grounding in bioethics and has shown far more understanding, common sense and empathy than most, including during this grotesque episode.1 reply 0 retweets 20 likes -
That doesn't really answer my question. I, too understand twitter anonymity, but it was certainly not the main point. Also, calling it a "grotesque episode" seems odd given that the issue comes from a misrepresentation you made of someone else's words
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Why is it grotesque to suggest that, under appropriate ethics provisions, it might reduce bias in research studies if they were to include anal swabbing as well as the battery of tests already approved?
4 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @BallouxFrancois and
I would argue that it is ethically more questionable to continue subjecting children to unnecessary and invasive blood draws without excluding this as a source of bias
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @BallouxFrancois and
Your answer is a classic false equivalence & red herring. So if I am against anal swab, I am for blood draws? How about none for kids unless *really* demonstrated benefits/rationale? Not a study from China showed a not significant diff. Not the case in the paper in question.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
The context is a research study in children to calculate population prevalence, so unless you're suggesting a purely questionnaire-based assessment of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 there has to be ~some~ intervention
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.