The guy has a huge audience and all he has to do is retweet his choice of epidemiologists, who are conveniently already all in his replies, yelling at him.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Please, man, what the hell are you taking about. People who respect you want to know.
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
There were a bunch of epidemiologists calling him out for This stuff :/
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If he’s not listing off numbers and telling us whether they are good or bad, what else does he have to keep himself goin?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I like it because he's got a history of looking at data in various domains, which most of the epidemiologists don't. Half the battle here is being able to spot bullshit data.
-
Much like his political schtick, what stats knowledge he has isn’t all that useful if you don’t know much about the underlying field
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
After he said in November 2016 that Clinton had something like a 90% favourable chance to clobber Trump I'm simply going to have to side with Scott Steiner's math over anything Nate Silver calculates.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Recent studies show that 20% immunity may provide a very substantial decrease in spread. So, he was correct.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opinion/coronavirus-superspreaders.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don’t miss Nate Silver at all
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.