The NYT should be commended for rectifying their incorrect claims about children transmitting more #COVID19 than adults. Though, some serious upfront fact checking would have been even better. I also doubt the correction will reach a tenth of the audience the initial paper did.
-
-
Replying to @BallouxFrancois @susandominus
I hope some scientists will give up citing this paper to support their preconceived opinions about children. This nyt article sadly created a lot of social media traction but it was clear from the start this study was never designed to answer the infectiousness question.
4 replies 31 retweets 145 likes -
This study, and the rushed, sensational reporting around it, more that almost any other, single-handedly caused so many schools who were equipped and ready to shut down and parents to keep kids home, in my observation. Correction will reach almost nobody and damage is done.
6 replies 21 retweets 115 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @mugecevik and
Especially terrible since the issue was obvious the moment it came out, even without the further information that has since come out.
2 replies 0 retweets 38 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @mugecevik and
Original article; almost 400,000 shares on Facebook alone. Correction? Not even a thousand shares, yet. It wasn't just the NYT, and how many will not even correct? I don't know how many kids are denied safe schooling and parents now overly-anxious because of the rushed reporting.pic.twitter.com/PCjkxM99Vv
6 replies 30 retweets 118 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BallouxFrancois and
@apoorva_nyc See? People on here saying how their friends are too scared to even let their kids out the house. Well done.2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @EthicalAfrica @zeynep and
But as the article points out, this does not change the overall conclusions. Bulk of evidence still says the same thing the paper arrived at (except that older kids probably transmit as much as adults, not more, which is where my article landed)
10 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @apoorva_nyc @EthicalAfrica and
It does, though. The study design makes the numbers uninterpretable re:infection direction. It adds almost nothing to our knowledge, to be honest (
@mugecevik has been doing excellent work tracking this so she can chime in). Two, the only thing it claimed different wasn't... true.3 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @EthicalAfrica and
I’m not talking about that paper on its own, but rather at where the bulk of the evidence points. As
@apsmunro and@BillHanage rightly point out.5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @apoorva_nyc @zeynep and
You are a mercenary. You lie and twist information to create fear. Then when caught out you don't have the decency to retract properly or support the retraction properly. Your "profession" needs to take a good look at itself. You are disgusting!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Are you reaching out to the hundreds of other reporters, most of whom aren't non-white women, and making the same claims? This is beyond ridiculous: a pile-on on the one reporter who's responsive enough to engage critics; does a lot of great work—and with whom I sometimes differ.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @apoorva_nyc and
So explain what her gender and race have to do with her deliberate and unrepentant fear mongering? My disgust extends to all in her "profession" who are the base cause of the catastrophe.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GarySmithRSA
The fact that the only pile-on that's going on with this topic is on this single reporter is more than enough evidence. Stop it. Go find one of the hundreds of other reporters that covered the same study, and actually usually worse with fewer caveats.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.