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
This challenge seems to be coming from a ton of different sources and scientists communicating what their expertise is pretty far down the line. Scientists did not force the NYT to issue a push notification on a single adverse event.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
No, but that's what we're facing. I'm describing what's out there.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
Got it. As a non-ID scientist, I am just frustrated to see ID folks get criticized on messaging (not by you). There is so much "science as politics" coverage where valid scientific uncertainty or disagreement is covered in the same way as "Dems in disarray!" IDK what we can do.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Sports2STEM @angie_rasmussen and
We are where we are. Ideally, individuals would not be in this position, of having to communicate this much, directly, with the public. But they are, so what's out there really matters, and this point over infectiousness has become an issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.