So, when the vaccines were proved to 90%+ effective at preventing people from getting COVID, science communication world (including me) was quick to have some caveats. One being that the vaccines weren’t proven to prevent you from spreading the disease.
-
-
And if you privately ask any person who knows about this, they’ll tell you that, yeah, almost definitely it will decrease you odds of infecting other people, possibly to near zero. But we talk honestly about what we do and don’t know. That’s the whole job.
Show this thread -
And COVID has surprised us before with asymptomatic transmission. But, just for clarity. We don’t know if vaccinated people will be a big infection vector. But we will know a lot more about that soon.
Show this thread -
But what I think is so interesting here is how god damn hard it is to communicate uncertainty. We don’t know A TON about covid, but what we don’t know is discarded as useless, or imagined as certainty of the opposite, when actually, unknowns are vital to keep in mind.
Show this thread -
This thread turns out to have found a place in an ongoing discussion in the SciComm world. Here are two takes that resonated with me. First from
@zeynephttps://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1341235643276554240 …Show this thread -
Second from
@ClimateOfGavin who, being in climate communication, has seen this all before.https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1341268597776244736 …Show this thread -
But I also think some people are worried about giving people any excuse to not wear masks. So it’s also a question of what the job is. Is the priority to spread the most accurate information possible? Or is it to increase compliance with CDC guidelines. I honestly don’t know.
Show this thread -
But I do think that going with
@zeynep’s “it probably will, but we’re waiting for more information” language prevents the misunderstanding we’re in now, is more accurate than “we don’t know”, and hopefully communicates the need for caution.Show this thread -
And also, it lets us avoid yet another “OH SO THEYRE CHANGING THEIR MINDS AGAIN” moment that I honestly think is undermining people’s faith in science.
Show this thread -
My instinct is to say, “this isn’t my fault, people should get that uncertainty is normal and also probably temporary” but my job is to communicate science, so that thought is ultimately destructive to the whole endeavor.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
People don't like uncertainty. They want reassurances. I say "they" instead of "we" just bc I'm science-minded, not bc I'm not a person.
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.