This frightening outbreak highlights one of the most important challenges for the cheap, rapid testing approach that @michaelmina_lab and others have proposed: creating a false sense of security that causes people to violate other guidelines, putting themselves and others at risk
-
-
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @michaelmina_lab
I disagree. Only if you misunderstand what those tests are for! And go against every possible sensible precaution. Plus, even with all their incomprehensible behavior, lots and lots of tests is the only reason this cluster isn’t out there sparking more.
3 replies 12 retweets 124 likes -
I mean, in one sense there is no method that wouldn’t be a challenge with people this determine to create a catastrophic situation. Most normal people can be empowered with knowledge.
2 replies 8 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @michaelmina_lab
lots and lots of human beings act like this! the Notre Dame president isn't "determine[d] to create a catastrophic situation," etc. surely we can acknowledge the risk here while also saying the White House was wildly irresponsible - both can be true!
4 replies 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @michaelmina_lab
I disagree lots of people behave like that. A few do, yes, but the benefit of such tests being widespread would vastly outweigh downsides any such behavior. So it’s not a big challenge really except for pockets like this where nothing helps because the denial outweighs all tools
1 reply 3 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @michaelmina_lab
but as you yourself have emphasized relatively small numbers of people / events can have large consequences b/c of way virus spreads. if 10% behave in ways that risk super-spreader events, that can cumulate fast. still in favor of more testing of course but worth thinking about
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanNyhan @michaelmina_lab
But even in this particular case, which is truly atypical in the depth of the denial and with every possible wrong action being taken—despite all possible tools at their disposal—it's the frequent, mass testing that's stopped the cluster from sparking tons more clusters.
2 replies 5 retweets 8 likes
So I guess my point is that, even if we take at face value there would be some risk compensation—I agree but I'o suggest is a much rarer phenomenon—the benefit of the method eclipses the potential harm/challenge of the risk compensation (though again, theirs is pure denial).
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.