A really important thread on that South Korea/kids study that got widespread coverage that, in my view, was not warranted because even without extra info, its statistics were internally weird plus findings not in line with previous research. Plus ages were inappropriately binned.https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1292852036720091136 …
-
-
Conclusion: studies are coming out quickly, but luckily, there's great pre- and post-publication peer-review going on by many scientists. Almost all issues are flagged within days; some resolved quickly, some needing further study. Slowing reporting to reflect all this will help.
Show this thread -
I'm aware of similar: kids as young as 10 that were set to have in-person interaction with resources and protections (including outdoors) are now online-only partly due to media coverage of that single study. (Not a single outlet thing! It was widespread!)https://twitter.com/TheNickFoy/status/1293162857270476802 …
Show this thread -
For a review of what we do & don't know about kids, see this *review* by
@mugecevik@mlipsitch &@EdwardGoldste16. That South Korea study wasn't interpretable for transmission—yet the correction is less likely to have same reach. Reviews > one new study.https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1294690950489530369 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I completely agree. Unfortunately we aren’t there and don’t seem, universally at least, interested in getting there. And now the rubber has to meet the road either way. Other nations can at least do those things and feel secure because they aren’t still exploding with cases.
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.