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 …
-
Show this thread
-
I am not *at all* claiming kids are/aren't transmitting; but coverage in this area has been too-rushed, too-dependent on single studies that do not get same attention when corrected. Also, a lot of conflation between symptomatic kids (rarer) versus all kids (the big question).
5 replies 5 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
Sometimes, just like the fake Lancet surgisphere "global" study, the numbers don't quite add up even internally, and there's something weird going on. What? We don't immediately know. Maybe minor. Maybe not. Often, this is pointed out in real time, but ignored. Have to slow down.
1 reply 1 retweet 36 likesShow this thread -
Unfortunately, that SK story got so widespread coverage that I'm aware of parents ready to keep their 10-year old under literal house arrest for the next year, simply because of that. This is extremely damaging to children, especially since the 10-19 age group wasn't informative.
5 replies 5 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
Parents are rightfully spooked. It's scary! High-profile reporting of single studies, especially when so many questions about it are raised immediately, doesn't help. We need preponderance of evidence and that means slowing down and reporting on the *accumulation* of studies.
3 replies 2 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted
I understand this but the study, as is, wasn't informative for the 10-19 age group, especially not as a whole, and especially for the younger end of the spectrum—but maybe none at all. Unclear. Decisions should not be driven by single studies like this. https://twitter.com/BaYouCanCallMe/status/1293154647436333057 …
zeynep tufekci added,
This Tweet is unavailable.3 replies 1 retweet 28 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
Wouldn't giving a choice between online and in-class to both parents and teachers be the "correct" thing to do at this level of uncertainty?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @say_cem
Depends. Many parents have to work and can't supervise "online." This is especially true for low-wage essential workers. What will those kids do? Some kids are despondent from the social isolation. Some outdoors teaching? Not advocating recklessness; but resources plus realism.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
*Forcing* teachers and parents who are concerned about contracting the virus and dying is the option that requires hard scientific backing. The issue about working parents is real, solving stuff like that is what governments are for. The online option should at least be allowed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Of course. There is no one-sized fits all solution here. But some kids aren't going to be safer if schools are completely closed (in haphazard group childcare instead); some kids have the resources, preferences and sometimes medical need to be online-only.
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.