It's really a totally unfair accusation to level at people who have worked very hard to use the best data available to combat this pandemic. You have consistently displayed an urge to get ahead of the data and I'm sorry scientists won't endorse that, but there's a reason not to.
-
-
Replying to @stgoldst @BogochIsaac and
It's not an accusation of malice.
@EricTopol can feel free to chime in if I'm "ahead of the data" in an unwarranted fashion. I watch for that, as one should, and it's been a year where I'm merely ahead of positive guidelines because I try hard to stick to data and don't oversell.2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Right now, there's widespread perception that these vaccines will not prevent infectiousness (rather than, they may well do so but we'll know more shortly) that life will not change even in 2021, and an anti-vaxxer message going wild, unopposed, on that. This is reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BogochIsaac and
I have seen a lot of messaging that by mid-2021 we can get substantially back to "normal". Can we do better getting that out? Of course! Does the fact that it hasn't 100% permeated everyone's thinking mean the message is no change indefinitely? No it does not.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Fauci is among those who have said we can get back to normal in 2021. Many have told people to expect widespread vaccination by July. Many scientists are hailing the vaccines as an incredible accomplishment.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
There has been *tons* of messaging touting the vaccines. You're asking for more than that, for scientists to get ahead of the data. We will have the data soon, and adjust messaging accordingly.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Hard agree. Communicating that we don't know how well the vaccines will curb transmission is not the same thing as saying they likely won't. Anti-vaxxers running with that message is not because scientists haven't conveyed the nuances or outright misrepresented the data.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @stgoldst and
Every interview I've done on the topic has 1. praised the triumph of the vaccines, 2. said they will likely reduce transmission but we don't yet know so use caution for now, and 3. said that assessing protection against infection should be the first priority.
3 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @stgoldst and
And I also spoke at the Pfizer/BioNTech adcomm about how we could use serology to assess that. I think it's incorrect to say that because we aren't speculating on data we don't yet have that we are enabling anti-vax misinformation. Everyone I know has discussed this at length.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @stgoldst and
All this started because *I've* pointed out it was good to say "they will likely reduce transmission but we don't yet know so use caution for now". I assure you that message is not getting out the way it needs to. I can point to individuals who say it, but I see what's out there.
3 replies 2 retweets 28 likes
So if everyone keeps saying "they will likely reduce transmission but we don't yet know so use caution for now" my initial response, request and point will be less necessary. Right now, it is necessary because a sense that they will not, without a timeline, is what's out there.
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.