So, when the vaccines were proved to 90%+ effective at preventing people from getting COVID, science communication world (including me) was quick to have some caveats. One being that the vaccines weren’t proven to prevent you from spreading the disease.
-
Show this thread
-
Not that it wouldn’t prevent that...just that we didn’t know yet. That has quickly morphed into, “It won’t protect against you infecting other people.” Which is also untrue. We just don’t know. We are attempting to communicate uncertainty, but it’s like people can’t hear it.
24 replies 159 retweets 4,202 likesShow this thread -
And if you privately ask any person who knows about this, they’ll tell you that, yeah, almost definitely it will decrease you odds of infecting other people, possibly to near zero. But we talk honestly about what we do and don’t know. That’s the whole job.
11 replies 78 retweets 2,921 likesShow this thread -
And COVID has surprised us before with asymptomatic transmission. But, just for clarity. We don’t know if vaccinated people will be a big infection vector. But we will know a lot more about that soon.
14 replies 48 retweets 2,499 likesShow this thread -
But what I think is so interesting here is how god damn hard it is to communicate uncertainty. We don’t know A TON about covid, but what we don’t know is discarded as useless, or imagined as certainty of the opposite, when actually, unknowns are vital to keep in mind.
56 replies 259 retweets 3,809 likesShow this thread -
Hank Green Retweeted zeynep tufekci
This thread turns out to have found a place in an ongoing discussion in the SciComm world. Here are two takes that resonated with me. First from
@zeynephttps://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1341235643276554240 …Hank Green added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepReplying to @trvrb @mpershan and 2 othersYes and yes. I’ve been trying to tell people that the message out there has become “it won’t stop you from transmitting” instead of “it probably will, maybe even a lot, but we’re waiting for more data to be sure” and.. getting disbelieved that’s the message out there. But it is!3 replies 20 retweets 739 likesShow this thread -
Hank Green Retweeted Gavin Schmidt
Second from
@ClimateOfGavin who, being in climate communication, has seen this all before.https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1341268597776244736 …Hank Green added,
3 replies 14 retweets 631 likesShow this thread -
But I also think some people are worried about giving people any excuse to not wear masks. So it’s also a question of what the job is. Is the priority to spread the most accurate information possible? Or is it to increase compliance with CDC guidelines. I honestly don’t know.
11 replies 21 retweets 749 likesShow this thread -
But I do think that going with
@zeynep’s “it probably will, but we’re waiting for more information” language prevents the misunderstanding we’re in now, is more accurate than “we don’t know”, and hopefully communicates the need for caution.12 replies 19 retweets 770 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hankgreen @zeynep
I think most people would stop listening after “it probably will.” That sentence very much does not communicate uncertainty to the general public.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That’s just not sure. It’s the opposite that creates the problem, not saying what every expert already knows and says if you talk to them in private.
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.