There is an interesting implicit judgement here about frequentist vs Bayesian. Do you tell people the base rate (most vaccines are effective against transmission, so this one likely is), or presume a null of no transmission benefits until proven?https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1341165997294637056 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Amen to that. We lost so much time by assuming absolute novelty and working from first principles, rather than working from what we already know and error correcting when proven wrong.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agree. Monto 1974 and 1979 review articles on coronaviruses has served me very well since March and enabled me to ignore most of the individual pre-print release/summary nonsense. So far, it's all tracking nicely to what we knew the older coronas did/do.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would buy that book imediately lol.
-
Thank you. It’s the ghost that’s haunting everything that we don’t talk about.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe it's not about numerical probability, but trust? And risk handling with the precautionary principle in conditions of uncertainty? Demanding certainty is a recipe for disaster.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Half-mulling" deserves recognition. Maybe a half-Pulitzer.
#halfnelsonThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Death by Frequentism *needs* to be an NYT best seller
- 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.