An excellent thread on epistemology
What do we know and how do we know it?
A narrow view of what we know, what is data can lead us into mental traps
This is not about delayed vs immediate vaccine doses
This is about what do we mean when we say, follow the science. H/T @zeynephttps://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1345800480144945152 …
-
-
Replying to @ashishkjha
And thank you for being out there with reasoned discussion on this obviously thorny, complex topic. It's much easier to stay quiet or to advocate for what appears bureaucratically safe rather than dive into discussions of trade-off in the face of uncertainty and a dire situation.
3 replies 2 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ashishkjha
We've all been diving into these trade-offs, even if we think a shift from a regimen with documented, robust efficacy to one with less certain effects is unwise. Juxtaposing it as "reasoned discussion" vs "bureaucratic safety" is your own value judgment coming into play here.
1 reply 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @gregggonsalves @ashishkjha
There *has* been a lot of bureaucratic safetyism—not just talking about the vaccine debate—but obviously that doesn't mean everyone I disagree with is doing that. (Moreover, in this case I don't even have the basis to defend strong opinion on either side).
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ashishkjha
And sorry but the epistemology stuff is slightly annoying. We've had three decades of assault on the regulatory state pushing for less evidence for public policies, particularly at FDA, eroding evidence base, while we pay higher prices than ever for what we get. 1/
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
And the call: rely on real world evidence, other kinds of data, personalized medicine, because RCTs are the 20th century's tool. The same logic applies: people are dying we have to move more quickly, trade answers for access. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
These calls for more epistemological flexibility and nuance play out in regulatory policies that are championed by the libertarian right. 3/
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Gee. Why would you say that, Greg? http://www.robwiblin.com pic.twitter.com/XGnHWQnNoo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This doesn't get far. There are lots of reasonable points made by people with agendas I'd disagree with. "Oh no a good point Y made by someone who's wrong on X" is not a way to debate, or even successfully oppose X. If anything, you're letting them have Y.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I agree, no guilt by association, but I didn't know this up front and the regulatory implications were obvious to me and need to be considered.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Yes, there are certainly regulatory implications. That's why it's important to find a reasonable way to consider these trade-offs (especially by acknowledging they exist) plus figure out how to be adaptive when proceeding in a triage situation (like now).
-
-
When in a triage situation, history does not suggest that the answer is "throw away techniques known to work in favor of techniques we have some reason to think might work."
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. 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.