In case there's any misunderstanding, I think the administrations response to COVID in general has been broadly catastrophic, and a scandal. The pandemic is and remains a huge threat; nothing to take lightly. School risks are complex. But it's important to get things right.
-
Show this thread
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted PastaMonkey
Two reasons. First, my thread is getting linked by people who spread misinformation about the pandemic, blindly defend the administration, and play down the risks. Two, making my own sense of things clear to provide context.https://twitter.com/monkey_pasta/status/1311000305136553984 …
zeynep tufekci added,
PastaMonkey @monkey_pastaReplying to @zeynepDon’t you think there’s something wrong though, when you defend the administration against false reporting, that we feel obliged to say just how much we don’t like the administration? I don’t like it either, but there’s stuff in every administration I don’t like.8 replies 6 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted
Here's an example highlighting excellent work by the CDC. I still find the suggestion baffling that the CDC scientists would balk at providing age-distributions, or consider that meddling. Cherry-picking data, yes. Age-distributions aren't cherry-picking. https://twitter.com/SurelyVoter/status/1311020413284089856 …
zeynep tufekci added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 5 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
I’m having trouble understanding your objection. Presumably the CDC has all the age-distribution data. It certainly should. The White House seemed to want a particular chart for PR purposes. And particular language. All political: minimize Covid to help Trump’s reelection.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JamesGleick @zeynep
If CDC scientists—in preparing their guidance for reopening schools—ignored their age-distribution data and lumped all 0- to 25-year-olds together, that would be criminally stupid. I don’t see any reason to think they did that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesGleick
The article makes the astonishing claim that 0-25 is "normal" and that somehow asking for a age breakdown is meddling, or it was resisted? Why? Article also cited a study that was misreported (and later corrected) as if it were correct. Dunno, really. Reporters need to update.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @JamesGleick
(And of course CDC provides age breakdowns and has had excellent reports. I don't understand what the reporters are claiming, it makes very little sense. The print version has many errors remaining; they've been silently updating the online one but still not coherent).
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Surely you do understand what the reporters are claiming. The White House made it clear to the CDC that information suggesting Covid-19 is a serious problem was to be suppressed and public reports were to be arranged so as to encourage people to go about their “normal” lives.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @JamesGleick
The particulars of the story are not that, though, in this case. They list a bunch of routine stuff and/or cite studies that were (very visibly) corrected and/or make claims that are either not coherent or correct. The reporters need to talk to science reporters and fix & update.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I feel this is a bit harsh. The White House asking CDC scientists for particular messaging is not a small thing. It’s scandalous. Terrifying. To me, at least. E.g.pic.twitter.com/7hPHSvH5cY
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Don’t disagree on meddling being terrible. That’s why it’s so important to report the specifics properly.
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.