The NYT should be commended for rectifying their incorrect claims about children transmitting more #COVID19 than adults. Though, some serious upfront fact checking would have been even better. I also doubt the correction will reach a tenth of the audience the initial paper did.
-
-
Replying to @BallouxFrancois @susandominus
I hope some scientists will give up citing this paper to support their preconceived opinions about children. This nyt article sadly created a lot of social media traction but it was clear from the start this study was never designed to answer the infectiousness question.
4 replies 31 retweets 145 likes -
This study, and the rushed, sensational reporting around it, more that almost any other, single-handedly caused so many schools who were equipped and ready to shut down and parents to keep kids home, in my observation. Correction will reach almost nobody and damage is done.
6 replies 21 retweets 115 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @mugecevik and
Especially terrible since the issue was obvious the moment it came out, even without the further information that has since come out.
2 replies 0 retweets 38 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @mugecevik and
Original article; almost 400,000 shares on Facebook alone. Correction? Not even a thousand shares, yet. It wasn't just the NYT, and how many will not even correct? I don't know how many kids are denied safe schooling and parents now overly-anxious because of the rushed reporting.pic.twitter.com/PCjkxM99Vv
6 replies 30 retweets 118 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BallouxFrancois and
@apoorva_nyc See? People on here saying how their friends are too scared to even let their kids out the house. Well done.2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @EthicalAfrica @zeynep and
But as the article points out, this does not change the overall conclusions. Bulk of evidence still says the same thing the paper arrived at (except that older kids probably transmit as much as adults, not more, which is where my article landed)
10 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @apoorva_nyc @EthicalAfrica and
It does, though. The study design makes the numbers uninterpretable re:infection direction. It adds almost nothing to our knowledge, to be honest (
@mugecevik has been doing excellent work tracking this so she can chime in). Two, the only thing it claimed different wasn't... true.3 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @EthicalAfrica and
I’m not talking about that paper on its own, but rather at where the bulk of the evidence points. As
@apsmunro and@BillHanage rightly point out.5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @apoorva_nyc @EthicalAfrica and
The study itself tells us nothing new because of design though, it is not interpretable for transmission direction which is what everyone wants to know more about (me too!). It should not have had a single article on it without more details.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes
Exactly. we cannot make strong claims and conclusions looking at this study and the reanalysis. But there is accumulating evidence now on this which we summarised in this review paper.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.19.20157362v2 …
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.
•