Worse, the people who voted no weren't given time right then to explain their votes—something that was done before. One even asked to separate the questions—vaccine authorization but not yet for 16-17—so he wouldn't have to vote no. Denied. Seems minor but let's not do this.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The idea that we're only facing medical issues is obviously not true, and it would really help matters if, at every level, there were more people whose focus is behavior, equity and trust. With all due respect—and I have a lot!—medical doctors can't fully fill this need.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why would there be a social science person on it?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Our society continues to have a misguided binary view on science vs humanity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It was a pointless own-goal, but not so much due to lack of social science as to incompetent chairing. It's simple to ask " Is it ok to vote first on 18+ then on 16-17?" Probably ok with all, & would avoid ambiguous "no's".
-
I thought the point was that a social scientist would’ve been better at making the point that they needed to separate out the votes. even though it seems obvious, someone needed to make the point forcefully & deeply. anyway I think that’s valid.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
These vaccines are literally experimental. Children are our future. This is strictly a medical question. Full stop.
Thanks. 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.