Would you consider a climate scientist who denied climate change a fringe expert or having a fringe opinion? I would seriously question their expertise in the area.
-
-
Replying to @dgurdasani1 @sdbaral and
They’d be an “expert” in that they have the relevant degrees and background, but they’d be fringe and it’d be entirely appropriate to question their knowledge and expertise.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @dgurdasani1 and
Thanks! Dr. Kulldorf developed the spatial scan-statistic which is used in most early-warning systems for ID, bioterrorism, etc. Dr. Gupta has been extremely influential in ID epi for a long time. And Dr. Bhattacharya is more practice-oriented but a history of contributions.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
That may be, but neither of them have presented any scientific evidence to back up what can only be described as an ideology.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dgurdasani1 @gorskon and
Again, I know that we live in a world of deep scientific polarization. Science used to be a process where we would listen to all and engage meaningfully. Ie, less tar and feathers and more discussion. But again, this is 2020.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Hard disagree- the science is very clear, and the scientific community is almost unanimously agreed. Engagement is not entertaining pseudoscience. What you're suggesting is the equivalent asking climate deniers to enter into a debate about climate change, when we know it is real
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @dgurdasani1 @gorskon and
As a scientist, I worry when people tell me when the science is settled. The field is publishing somewhere about 5-8k articles about COVID-19 per month or ~ 250 articles per day. I know that I am similarly on the fringe here, but don't think much of anything has been settled.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @sdbaral @dgurdasani1 and
NO ONE has said that
#COVID19 science is “settled.” NO ONE. That’s a straw man argument. However, just because#COVID19 science isn’t as clear as, say, that of vaccines, evolution, or climate science does NOT mean that we know little or nothing.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
There are aspects of
#COVID19 science that have become very clear. Masks and social distancing work to slow its spread, for instance. It’s also difficult if not impossible to do “focused protection” if a virus is spreading unchecked in the general population.1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
What we do/don’t know about herd immunity for
#COVID19 is relevant too. We know that, conservatively, 50-60% (at least) of the population would have to get the virus, recover, and become immune. We DON’T know how long immunity after the disease lasts or how many don’t achieve it.1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
Because we don’t know if people who get #COVID19 are immune or, if they are, whether that immunity is long lasting, we can confidently conclude that any strategy based on herd immunity (like #GreatBarringtonDeclaration) is foolhardy in the level of risk and death it entails.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @dgurdasani1 and
Thanks! I don't think we have a great correlate of exposure so am unsure of what herd immunity threshold is. I am also unsure of population-level effectiveness of masks. And lastly, I believe few empiric interventions to date as compared to those that mainly benefit the rich.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I would suggest becoming more familiar with the evidence- a lot of this seems to be about your uncertainty rather than the actual science, which is quite clear on many of these aspects.
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.