If a generally smart and quantitative outsider makes a direct, data-driven calculation quantifying one of the ignored mechanisms in a specific context, it may be a valuable contribution and may even change the policy recommendation. Ignored factors can easily be 1st order.
-
Show this thread
-
BUT, chances are that this outsider is missing *even more things* than the existing (massively incomplete) expert analyses. So of course, the outsider should qualify their judgment.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
For example, I find the one-shot arguments very persuasive, but I'm not qualified to assess the evidence for how a 2nd shot impacts the overall time path of immunity (among other things). If it substantially lengthens immunity, I could be completely wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Ideally, outsiders with big public platforms should contact and discuss with insiders as
@zeynep did with@michaelmina_lab.1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Outsiders routinely use normative disagreements as an excuse for dismissing experts, but this is usually cherry-picking. If your argument is effectively, "They know more than me but I am better at morality than them", you probably just need to learn humility.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Bioethicists sometimes stake out extreme and crazy positions. I don't agree with Harald Schmidt here (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html …), and I think Zeke Emanuel is bonkers for not wanting to live past 75https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
But like any other large community, public health researchers come from a variety of backgrounds. If they generally agree about something, it's probably not because they all embrace some bonkers position.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Outsiders overstate the degree of uniformity in normative assumptions among experts. e.g. easy to say, "Public health researchers were too hesitant to run challenge trials" ignoring that prominent voices like
@mlipsitch were calling for just that.1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
That said, existing *policies* (as opposed to expert consensus) are the result of a messy political process and might be driven by bonkers outliers or by groups competing for influence.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Jabaluck
Don't like this kerfuffle (!) so I'm wary, but "expert consensus" vs outsiders is a Twitter artifact. I'm listening to ACIP deliberations: 1-Recs changed from draft to now; 2-Are being challenged/considered as I type; 3-WHO has different(ish) recs; 4-Other countries have recs...
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
And many things don't have one correct answer (funding/value dependent) & societal buy-in is very important so transparency/debate is important. Within the last three hours I heard many objections from *within* the ACIP meeting so "trust the experts" doesn't have a single answer.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
There are many questions where expert consensus is a real thing, e.g.: https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade/ …. Agree this isn't a case where the experts all agree. Would be nice to have better data on the distribution of opinions among epi people a la IGM survey.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Jason Abaluck Retweeted Jason Abaluck
And better still to have evidence on the causal effect of knowledge on beliefs: https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1330656185859584003 …, but that's a lot to ask!
Jason Abaluck added,
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.