Subtweet to media, especially science writers. When WHO says "there is no evidence", they don't mean something is false. There is no evidence either way. It could just as well be true. Also, "correlation doesn't imply causation" is wrong and stupid, and doesn't debunk anything.
-
-
Masks, antibodies, and yes, still early to tell for sure but weather/seasonality and BCG... If anything the default assumption should be some immunity with antibodies given prior evidence and yet, I so so many panicked "vaccine not possible" comments. https://twitter.com/dylanhmorris/status/1257335215493611520 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
Because while we caution people to check for confounding variables—as one should—causative dynamics are of course often correlated with consequences they cause! It's like the only stats people learned is the warning but we didn't teach basic of causation.https://twitter.com/shinobi42/status/1257334933728768005 …
Show this thread -
WHO has flunked the communication of the science of this in many ways, but media folks, too. Basics: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "No evidence" doesn't mean false. Correlation hints (sometimes strongly) at causation, but doesn't prove it by itself. Not hard!
Show this thread -
Yeah, another major failure. WHO went to China, traveled with all the minders, and didn't see evidence of asymptomatic transmission and told us there was none instead of telling us we didn't know, and communicate the limits of what they could ascertain.https://twitter.com/BolognaFishMD/status/1257197972539838467 …
Show this thread -
Coverage has already gotten into the horse-race framing! Instead of political polls or sports betting, we now have model tracking etc. It's not productive or healthy, nor will it help guide us out of here. It's misleading. We aren't getting what we need.https://twitter.com/eadhed/status/1257337806009044993 …
Show this thread -
Yes! There are many types of evidence besides randomized-trials. Sometimes it's not even possible to have randomized trials but that doesn't mean we should act like all the other types of evidence don't exist or are meaningless.https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1257346654409285635 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Scientific studies are ongoing right now to check if you can get long term Immunity after contracting Coronavirus. Most of the serology tests aren't providing reliable data. Here's a good article on "Herd Immunity" and the problems with it. http://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-herd-immunity.amp.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'd take it a step further and say correlation implies *probable* causation when there's a well-studied underlying mechanism. ie: We've known masks block saliva for a long time. We've known that the antibodies confer resistance to other viruses that have been studied.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"correlation IMPLIES possible causation because they do tend to go together." NO! this is completely invalid from a scientific POV, you're conflating narrative event perception (your domain) with analytic or theoretical modes of investigation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Correlation correlates with causation because causation causes correlation.
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.