Dear journalists and
-tweeters, please don't write definitive sounding stuff from single studies—especially when the claim is bold—without waiting for the scientific community to react and also without noting limitations the *authors* point out themselves. It's been ten months!https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1333647449987063809 …
-
-
!!
@zeynep's so right dinging media rush to the#frontpagethought in pre-review#covid19 research findings on#SARSCoV2, vaccines, masks & more. I've offered a label system that might help (media can't ignore such stuff but *have* to signal clearly! https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/1259165805343911938 …pic.twitter.com/rbl0DBhR54
-
The rush to post on hot cutting-edge science - especially with online
#instanet news pressures - is not new. Here's a string of instances around#climatechange. A key challenge in the social/online era is covering with context. https://j.mp/prereviewpublicity …pic.twitter.com/Uxz8x1IoZv
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you Zeynep! I saw this WSJ article getting shared around uncritically in a number of circles. CDC stamp + WSJ gives this unjustified authority (relative to the data in the manuscript).
-
Thank *you* for jumping in! Yes, on the one hand, first-known case is in China is Nov. 19 so okay-maybe-let's-see but the authors themselves note limitations *plus* so many single-studies with bold claims turn out not to be so... Tragic that media still does it like this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The counterpoint to this is that decisive action on incomplete information is a necessary part of a fast-moving crisis. I'm tired of seeing scientists asking for 95% certainty instead of 60% to make a recommendation, waiting 6 months, and then being too late to do any good.
-
Agreed. But there's a way to do that without this. The opposite of "where is the perfect RCT if it's missing let's not take sensible steps with a lot of evidence" isn't pedal-to-the-metal reporting or tweeting. If anything, the latter hurts attempts to correct the former.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This has been true for ~all~ medical studies filtered by the msm, for ~decades~.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They've been doing this with science forever. I remember someone did an experiment once, and made up an obviously bullshit study that kinda slightly said there was some evidence chocolate makes you lose weight,
-
They got it published in a sketchy journal, and it was in headlines around the world. There were like 1,400 articles written about it, all were uncritical announcements of the new weight loss effects of chocolate! Only one reporter ever called about it.
End of conversation
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.