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 …
-
Show this thread
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Robert Wiblin
Here's a good thread about the "no data" fallacy. (You don't have to agree with it's conclusions—point is the epistemology). A bureaucratic "no data" doesn't equal scientific "no data". Imperfect, incomplete, uncertain yes. "No data" is almost never true.https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800480144945152 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Robert Wiblin @robertwiblinA serious reasoning error that is particularly common among educated people is to argue that if a study hasn't been done on a particular question we have 'no data', and therefore no basis on which to form beliefs or act. This is incorrect and dangerous. 1/Show this thread5 replies 41 retweets 202 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.