I ask because it's difficult to think of an instance in which you haven't been absolutely certain you were right and immunologists/virologists/epidemiologists were wrong and some might view that as a red flag as to the soundness of your arguments.
-
-
Experts of course can be wrong and should admit when we/they are. But if your through-line is that they're *always* wrong I think you are just undermining science more than anyone frankly and it comes across as very prior-driven rather than data-driven.
1 reply 2 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @tarahaelle and
Who said they're always wrong? Plus, on things not in my direct field, I am obviously super duper cautious and thus my track record. But here we're talking about something directly in my field here, public sphere an communication. If we are deferring to expertise, I'm the expert.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle and
The question of what we do and don’t know about vaccine efficacy against transmission is a matter of immunology and virology and you have accused experts of *deliberately* withholding scientific information from the public on this.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Incredibly damaging attacks on scientific matters. I’ll be honest. It’s disheartening to see from a fellow academic and leads experts to consider simply disengaging from public outreach at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
If that’s not your intent, fine, I accept that. But consider perhaps the way you frame your criticisms and their impact on the targets and whether we’ll be better off if scientists withdraw from science communication.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @tarahaelle and
In this thread, I've responded to a claim that the NYT article (which I did not write) about the evolution of messaging was irresponsible and harmful. I completely disagree on that, and again, if deferring to expertise, this is very much a field where *I'm* the expert.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
On transmission risks, there are four or five medical experts quoted in the article, and I have nothing to add to that, nor do I need to. The issue raised in the article about messaging is (again, very much my own core field) in my view, correct, and also not that hard to fix.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
That article isn't arguing to hide anything. There is, however, no need to have this many prominent articles on "don't throw off your masks" and so few on how amazing these vaccines are. All this misunderstand persistence of masking reluctance (not ignorance, it's polarization)
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Also, when Rand Paul made that claim (he is someone whose misinformation I wrote about in the paper of record so not a fan), it is better to greet it with less attention. The exaggerated debunking was more harmful than his message (he has no constituency among the masking crowd).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
And, once again, role of attention and framing, strategic silence, when the debunking efforts actually misfire, how the misinformation crowd and grifters uses openings/failings among experts to gain headway... Those are very very much my fields.
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.