Kelsey PiperVerified account

@KelseyTuoc

Staff writer, Vox's Future Perfect. kelsey.piper@vox.com

Oakland, CA
Joined June 2018

Tweets

You blocked @KelseyTuoc

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @KelseyTuoc

  1. Pinned Tweet
    6 Feb 2020

    More than that, pandemics have some risk of being really bad. Much worse than the annual flu. As bad as the 1918 flu that killed 50 million - or conceivably worse, b/c we don't have a principled reason to think that's as bad as it can get either.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  2. Retweeted

    Agree with this piece: In some ways Don't Look Up works better as an allegory about other wildly overlooked but potentially existential threats (asteroid strikes, supervolcanoes, the next pandemic…) than as an allegory about climate change:

    Show this thread
    Undo
  3. Retweeted
    Jan 4

    Don’t look up is a satirical film in which a comet likely to strike the earth poses an existential threat to humanity — the authors say it’s an allegory about climate change but what if we read it as about comet strikes?

    Show this thread
    Undo
  4. Retweeted
    Jan 3

    A small group of elite decision-makers really could greatly improve our comet-defense policies if they bothered to care!

    Show this thread
    Undo
  5. Retweeted
    30 Dec 2021

    I saw the phrase "a constant impulse to overleap the process of becoming genuinely sure of something to get to the part where you're smug about it" somewhere and can't stop thinking about it.

    Undo
  6. Retweeted
    27 Dec 2021

    'I really do feel like the story of antigen tests is just the story of how America deals with public health; inefficiently, paternalistically, and without any collective unity. The rapid test is just a microcosm of all that is flawed'

    Undo
  7. Retweeted
    26 Dec 2021

    How well calibrated were global catastrophic risk experts on the size of future natural pandemics? From Bostrom and informal 2008 survey, the experts estimated a mean probability of 60% that a natural pandemic would kill 1m people before 2100.

    Undo
  8. Retweeted

    This recent piece strikes me as bullshit at best. “If we were redefine gain-of-function research to include most of microbiology, banning it would be bad for science. So let’s not enact the much narrower ban that is actually being proposed.”

    Undo
  9. 22 Dec 2021

    Do they spend more on research? Structure research teams differently? Approve projects/scan projects for promisingness differently? Hire differently? This seems important to figure out!!

    Show this thread
    Undo
  10. 22 Dec 2021

    Is Pfizer systematically different from the other big pharma research companies in a way that explains why they invented both one of the best vaccines and the best treatment, or do people think it's probably coincidence?

    Show this thread
    Undo
  11. Retweeted
    22 Dec 2021

    All the local pharmacies are sold out of rapid tests, so my neighbors have taken to posting on the local listserv asking if anyone will sell them one. Email after email panicking about exposures and their families. This is such a tremendous government failure.

    Undo
  12. 21 Dec 2021

    There's a remarkable seriousness and moral clarity to Scott's latest post, making the case for doctors to prescribe off-label for Covid patients this winter.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  13. 21 Dec 2021

    "That’s partly on the FDA for making poor decisions such that optimal treatment required virtue on the part of individual doctors. But mostly it’s on me, for not having it.":

    Show this thread
    Undo
  14. Retweeted
    21 Dec 2021
    Show this thread
    Undo
  15. Retweeted
    21 Dec 2021

    With cases spiking, oral antivirals unaccessible, and limited access to monoclonal antibodies which work for Omicron -- fluvoxamine looks like reasonable choice to prevent hospitalization Preprinted to make it available immediately for consideration

    Show this thread
    Undo
  16. 21 Dec 2021

    I almost struggle to name an amount of money I *wouldn't* be willing to spend to produce enough Paxlovid for the whole world. Spending $100billion on this would be a bargain. (Are we doing that? No.)

    Undo
  17. Retweeted
    21 Dec 2021

    Let's take a look in the mirror: if Collins had come to us and said "Tell me what you know," what could we actually have said, with a solid scientific basis? Honest question. I'm curious if anyone can point to consensus conclusions that translate into actionable policy advice.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  18. Retweeted
    20 Dec 2021

    Please don't let the dipshit ideologues who have been promoting early treatments that likely don't work (HCQ, ivermectin) get in the way of keeping an open mind for the ones that could (Fluvoxamine). And if you do, you're also a dipshit. Different drug. Different data.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  19. Retweeted
    20 Dec 2021

    Great piece on the new and the importance of experimenting with scientific funding models by .

    Undo
  20. Retweeted
    17 Dec 2021

    Technological change is so fast that within a few years the government will have ability to distribute home testing equipment that currently exists

    Show this thread
    Undo
  21. Retweeted
    17 Dec 2021

    Glad to see the NIH finally updated their fluvoxamine guidance: Risk/benefit call here doesn't seem like it's obviously correct but credit where credit's due: having an actual take on the recent evidence is an improvement.

    Undo

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.

    You may also like

    ·