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.
-
Show 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.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
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
Not a huge fan of those polls though including the one you just sent because too reductionist. But for this particular question—judging by papers, other countries etc.—the previous draft was an outlier, current one is less so but ACIP itself has a lot of challenge to it *within.*
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Not sure we disagree (if at all). When experts disagree, this doesn't make expertise any less necessary for a comprehensive evaluation. But the best expert analyses capture a tiny fraction of relevant points, so lots of room for outsiders to contribute as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jabaluck
Yeah, we agree (except I don't like polls too much for this). It's fraught, for sure. With a pandemic, there is no neat inside/outside for many topics (given impact and lack of expert consensus) but some sub-part of a broad topic often has a narrow expertise that to be respected.
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.