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.
-
Show 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 -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Gag Halfrunt ✍️ 🩸 🦷 🌊
We may sadly be doing both; some places recklessly opening up without plans or protections while we're also needlessly spooking parents into extreme measures. I see both a lot. I'm advocating for: preponderance of studies and resources/plans based on that.https://twitter.com/dmjossel/status/1293155091357237259 …
zeynep tufekci added,
6 replies 6 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Max Kennerly
To be clear, as the linked thread makes it clear, there is no claim anywhere that kids aren't transmitting *at all*. The opposite of that, however, isn't how that SK study was represented, especially in headlines, that somehow, 10-19 is same as adults.https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1293156276394917888 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Max KennerlyVerified account @MaxKennerlyReplying to @zeynepThis tweet. To say "I am not *at all* claiming kids are/aren't transmitting" suggests there is no evidence to say whether kids transmit at all. Obviously they do transmit, and obviously they get sick and die. The issue is how often relative to adults. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1293153076447268867 …2 replies 3 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Erin Shedd
Not blaming the parents! We needed to aggressively put resources into schools and it wasn't done. It's terrible all around. But understanding the relative risk is important so we can prioritize: younger kids; outdoors when possible; PPE for teachers; etc.https://twitter.com/NOLAcuse/status/1293158961529659392 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Erin Shedd @NOLAcuseReplying to @zeynepAnd parents (and school administrators) have to decide within days or weeks what they are going to do. They don’t have time to wait for the preponderance of studies to make a decision. Can’t blame a parent for thinking that “winging it” isn’t a safe bet right now.2 replies 3 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
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.
2 replies 4 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Nick Foy
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 …
zeynep tufekci added,
3 replies 5 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
How does one weigh risk-to-benefits between in-school w. poor ventilation & shoddy mask use, versus at-home with little socialization & impoverished teaching?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PaulSzego
For some cases, the risk is worse; it's haphazard childcare (not good from infection prevention stand-point) on top of lack of access to social services. Better to figure out how to prioritize most vulnerable as soon as possible based on realistic understanding or relative risk.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
So if more parents who have the $/means to keep their kids home actually do so, doesn’t that reduce the burden of schools (resources, congestion, aerosols, etc.) for the marginalized/low-income/front-line parents who can’t? Does it help prioritize those children’s safety?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I would agree that’s how we should do it. Let people who need to, or who can afford to do remote education do so—and thus also free up resources and space for those who cannot or need to be in person for specific reason.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @PaulSzego
As a School Psychologist, I appreciate & respect your thoughts on this. And many other topics!) Keep fighting the good fight and trying to help us all do better!
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.