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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Sports2STEM @angie_rasmussen and
No, but that's what we're facing. I'm describing what's out there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @zeynep @Sports2STEM and
In studying misinformation, there is something called a "data void"—it's a thing you don't have credible info on, because it's not a credible thing. But if you don't counter it, it can spread, unchecked because there's no counter-messaging. This is adjacent to that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @Sports2STEM and
Mass shooters puts such terms in their manifestos, for example—to get young folks googling. All you encounter is their version.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Adjacent conceptual problem. We have traditional (and credible) messaging on "keep on masking for now" (imo, a little overeager but not a problem on its own.) However, this is not happening in a void—the "no transmission benefit so why bother" is being aggressively pushed.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @Sports2STEM and
And once again, I *praised* an article for putting more data and context on the knowns and unknowns on this question because I think people are looking at their own environment and missing that part. There is no need to circle the wagons, because, yes the whole set-up sucks.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
Your work and writing has been consistently excellent through the pandemic. I shared your article today on "hanging on" with my extended family to try to keep them informed.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.