Of the people quoted for the healthfeedback piece, the median number of twitter followers was 4,514, with two people having well below 1,000 prior to COVID-19. The mean is skewed up to 35k by Topol
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Wrong, Topol is not an expert in the dataset-- he was never a reviewer, his tweet was just quoted in the 'independent fact checking website' that obviosly appropriately selects what articles to review and rate.


Gideon, you are the king of motivated reasoning, it appears.1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
Oh, the number is MUCH lower if you only look at reviewers. Of the three reviewers for the piece, Tara had a fairly large account prior to COVID-19, Bill had a tiny one, and I do not believe Marm had one at all
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 Retweeted Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 added,
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷Verified account @VPrasadMDMPHReplying to @GidMK @CT_BergstromSadly that is not the sole claim in the article nor the appropriate test. If you pick fact checkers from folks who have telegraphed their opinion on issues (via twitter), one does not have an independent process. end of story.1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
I was responding to a factual claim with an empirical test. I think it's quite useful to know if the statement is true or not irrespective of whether our opinions align
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
ur q makes no sense; I've 0 doubt these folks had low followers pre-covid. They have high followers now b/c they have a shared world view, and broadcast that daily, and hence are chosen as reviewers when you could choose rando faculty at hopkins but couldn't guess their 2 c
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
I mean, it's almost like there's a correlation between gaining a lot of followers during COVID-19 and being interested in publicly commenting on the pandemic. Point is, it's pretty obviously inaccurate to say that being a social media star is a requirement to review
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
You are missing my point. If you want to fact check fairly, you have to pick articles fairly and pick reviewers fairly. You can't pick Marty's opinion article b/c you dislike it, and then look on twitter to find folks who tweet a ton of material that tells u they will 2
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @VPrasadMDMPH @CT_Bergstrom
You made an empirical claim in your article - that the people chosen were "twitter celebrities" rather than fact checkers. That claim appears to be incorrect, regardless of your opinions about Facebook more broadly
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Of all the qualified epidemiology reviewers in the world, 80% of reviewers being on twitter with mean 42,000 followers is enriched for twitter celebrities. Sorry to break that to you
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
Lol, leaving aside the absurdity of using the mean value, as we've already discussed most of those followers were probably gained for doing things precisely like this. You even agreed!
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @CT_Bergstrom
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 Retweeted Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷
median is 10000 Your comparison is not righthttps://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1369159357749862400?s=20 …
Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️ 📷 added,
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
These are claims about science facts, so the population is all qualified researchers who can adjudicate those facts. Among this group, they do not have median 10k, mean 42k followers, and 80% on twitter. That is absurd; as such this enriches for twitter celebs
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.