Not sure if you’re speaking specifically about me not being able to “be wrong,” but anyone who’s followed me can tell you I *always* make it clear when I’m wrong & I correct. I have no prob w being wrong. I have a prob w overstating evidence & oversimplifying complex issues.
-
-
Replying to @tarahaelle
False security argument in this context isn't adding complexity because it has no evidence, and if anything, the signaling power of masks in a pandemic for more alert behavior has more face-value validity from similar events. So it's wrong. "Complexity" needs to be appropriate.
3 replies 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle
I mean, I'm an academic, I can add faux complexity to anything. But I prefer to make things as complex as the evidence allows. We don't have evidence for risks; we don't have reason to suspect or evidence for risk-compensation or false security. Anyway, even CDC and WHO conceded!
2 replies 2 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
My goal isn’t to be “against” you. We’re on the same side of wanting to rescue COVID cases and get the pandemic under control.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tarahaelle
I'm not against anyone! I want risk-compensation and false-security to be taken seriously. They are common arguments against almost all safety measures, and very very rarely with any evidence in their support at the community level.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle
Isn't the real issue the uncertainty in the trade-off? I'm not convinced we can shrug off the possibility of a false-security effect given the number of prevention measures we're asking people to take all at once, even if there's no direct evidence of risk compensation.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
At the population-level, masks may be useful in this case because they would protect against asymptomatic transmission on a large scale. I suspect many who wear masks believe they're getting the protection, though, rather than protecting others.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EvilMammoth @tarahaelle
What is the trade-off? The no reason to expect or evidence for risk-compensation versus solid preponderance of evidence for dampening asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic spread and removing stigma that allows sick people to wear one? Anyway, after even convincing CDC and WHO, it's good.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle
Trade-off is that no evidence for risk compensation doesn't mean we have no reason to expect/consider. If we're wrong, we may see less social distancing or hygiene. Where's the inflection point where reducing asymptomatic transmission outweighs those behavior changes if realized?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's also possible that estimation changes when we learn more about the relative contributions of various transmission routes. FWIW, if I had to bet, I'd probably bet that universal mask-wearing is a net positive. I'm just not sure how much.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I'm not against keeping an eye on this at all but the argument for and historical evidence for signaling alertness and allowing sick-people to wear a mask without stigma is much much stronger. I always like looking for tail risks, but keep them in context: lit suggests otherwise.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle
Have you written about the signaling alertness/stigma issue or discussed that evidence in an article? Honestly curious. I admit I don't know much about it. Have thought more about risk compensation in HIV/STI transmission, where it seems to depend on context.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.