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 …
-
-
(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 -
-
-
To clarify: Do you mean "philosophical frequentism" as opposed to Bayesianism, as in "explicitly stating priors and updating them dynamically with the weight of new evidence"? Because I'd agree. I think that applies across the board in US politics, COVID just exposed it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes! I have felt this as well and also feel that frequentism has plagued our interpretation of what is evidence-based in other fields. I work in humanitarian aid and if there is no RCT, we act as if we have no clue if something works.
-
I have also worked on health guidelines & seen how rigid the frameworks are for what constitutes evidence. But then also, at the end of the day, the "evidence" is interpreted by ppx who bring in their priors, yet these priors are unstated. And therefore are difficult to influence
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe it wasn't new to the virologists and epidemiologists, but it was new to the media, and they set the tone for the public discourse. Unfortunately.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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/