A really good thread on the SK transmission study. Given gravity of situation and inherent bias in many study designs I agree that we should make decisions based on what emerges as a consensus. bravo @apsmunrohttps://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1284794506265722881 …
-
-
Replying to @BillHanage @apsmunro
I wish the reporting would slow down to take into account that there is *excellent* post peer-review that happens within a day or two, catching a lot of issues quickly and adding needed nuance. Alas, headlines and takeaways that range from misleading to unnuanced is dominating.
4 replies 10 retweets 47 likes -
The headlines bit is a real problem. And worth noting may not be chosen by the reporter (or oped writer)
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @BillHanage @apsmunro
I know, sadly. As someone who writes her own pieces I frequently negotiate headline because that's all what most people will see. But still, a single study that has a lot of open questions should be presented as.. a single study with a lot of open questions.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I know reporters don't have a lot of power there, but it's a huge issue. (Stats in this study are a little wonky, and we will probably get a clarification. I suspect their definition of "index" and the way they had a little murky measuring of "transmission" will be root of it.).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
But all that many will remember is a misleading headline and the simplistic takeaway, rather than the clarification that will probably come and the more nuanced interpretation (given so few cases and the lumping of the 10-19 age group). Too high stakes, but this is how it works.
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.