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.
-
-
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 -
Dr. Angela Rasmussen Retweeted zeynep tufekci
Further up in the thread you said that scientists were focusing on the gloom of the unknown & that misinformation is thriving because we fail to communicate nuance. Now you say we are communicating that nuance but it's somehow not getting out? I'm confusedhttps://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1339581692802199552?s=20 …
Dr. Angela Rasmussen added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepReplying to @zeynep @BogochIsaac and 2 othersThe problem is people don't feel confident in saying "look these are the indicators but here's why we gotta wait" and think that if we say that, everyone will go all reckless. In reality, I think not communicating the nuance/data is what leads to dismissal and recklessness.1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
Anti-vaccine advocates are claiming that scientists are saying the vaccines won't prevent transmission, but most scientists are not actually saying that. Anti-vaxxers are creating false narratives. It's wrong to claim this is solely an issue of failed communication by experts.
1 reply 3 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @stgoldst and
Who said "solely"? But yes, absolutely, not communicating the nuance, complexity and the timeline of what we do and don't know is exactly what misinformation and wariness thrives on, and countering it requires look at what's happening out there beyond what an individual has said.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
I agree with that, but it's not just an individual communicating the nuances. It's *most* experts interviewed on the topic. What data do you have that this message is not getting out there, other than anti-vaxxers being predictably loud about it?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @stgoldst and
Part of what I do is monitor the public conversation around these topics, both because I'm out there writing and also because studying the public sphere/information ecology is what I do (well used to do more of!) before the pandemic.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
The reasons I keep urging individuals is that the top-down messaging is already not great, and media/social media swung from denialism to alarmism (NYT sent a push alert for a single adverse event yesterday), and people *are* confused.
3 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
Ideally, we'd have "be first, be right, be credible" from the agencies, with individuals playing a secondary role. But that's not where we are. And the "won't prevent infection" message is really big out there despite it's lack of immediate relevance (given hcw are first).
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes
And, again, all this is because I *praised* an article communicating the nuance and *including* proper details on why they will likely dampen transmission, to some degree, to be determined later, during which time we will keep up masking etc. if lucky enough to be vaccinated.
-
-
Dr. Angela Rasmussen Retweeted zeynep tufekci
I appreciate that & we agree on what the message should be. But you also claim a "widespread perception" that the vaccine won't prevent infection. The anti-vaxxers certainly want us to believe that's reality but I'm not sure it is from my own observations.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1339615424275767304?s=20 …
Dr. Angela Rasmussen added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepReplying to @zeynep @stgoldst and 4 othersRight 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.5 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
I'd beg to add a pov anecdota collection. Many in my larger circles are explicitly mentioning continued transmission as a negative "feature" of the vaccine. There are commonly flowing opinions below the headlines, definitely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.