I'd like to highlight a point about epistemology. Many people—scientists and journalists—with infectious disease experience immediately pegged this as the next potential SARS. It had all the hallmarks. Nothing was certain, but it wasn't that we had "no data." We always have data.https://twitter.com/DimaBabilie/status/1345861726370205696 …
-
-
Policy (and thus public health) will necessarily involve working with imperfect, incomplete data, and (sometimes terrible) trade-offs. Mike Ryan of WHO had it right. "If you need to be right before you move, you will never win." Hence all these debates.https://twitter.com/i/status/1346073730510954498 …
0:45Show this thread -
I'm not arguing here about any particular debate but the fallacy that's plagued a lot of this discussion. There is of course stronger/weaker and different types of evidence, different trade-offs and calculations etc. But "no data" is almost never true, and yet gets used a lot.
Show this thread -
I've been thinking that, epistemologically, that might be one of the most important lessons of last year. An implied philosophical frequentism that has plagued our analysis/action/communication.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1341452907175170050 …
Show this thread -
(And please don't @ me as if this is an argument about the merits of a particular vaccine scheduling or dosing. I'm talking about epistemology. There are people with impeccable credentials making important points on all sides of that & decisions will be made with imperfect data!)
Show this thread -
Yep. The BBC story then just repeats the Chinese official lie that there had "been no human-to-human transmission" whereas anyone familiar with these viruses, the region & the Chinese government patterns knew this to be likely false and acted accordingly.https://twitter.com/coreyspowell/status/1346107331847860230 …
Show this thread -
Also, on the vaccine debate, this is an excellent thread. (No, it won't give you an answer but explains why we are where we are, differences between individual results & population-level questions and makes a strong case for adapting fast as we go along).https://twitter.com/IDEpiPhD/status/1345176257995165696 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have been thinking about the data continuum: the thinnest data layer depends on analogy, which itself is a very very powerful analytic tool, and builds up more facticity as analogy pushes new questions to be answered.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The converse holds. There is never perfect data or analyses. Judgement/experience (and occasionally political courage) are essential to bridge the gaps otherwise we have paralysis (or worse).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Same for people who are vaccinated and are later infected We have little to no specific data on their level of infectiousness, but can infer an expected reduced risk given our knowledge of how diseases functions in asymptomatic vs presymptomatic individuals
-
Yeah, of course. It's incredible, so many people appear to think "we don't know" if the vaccine will reduce transmission at all. Seen medical folks make that claim on media ,too. Umm, yeah, we do. We have perfectly justified expectations of reduction, just nothing precise yet.
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.
… 1/