Well if it’s presented in a misleading context that’s unfortunate but in combination with at least one provably false statement about vaccines would seem to cut against this being a beneficial article!
-
-
Look, this is a common response I get. I've been seeing this since December. People are being led to believe that we already know they do NOT reduce transmission. And this has become an antivaxxer talking point (why bother, it was bait and switch etc)pic.twitter.com/USp8rNZaMF
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Somehow intentions to get vaccinated have gone up since the vaccines were authorized is my understanding?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
As I said (politely repeating myself) I don’t doubt there’s been some misfiring but I see a lot of messaging of exactly the sort you’re saying we should do but claim is absent. And intended vaccine uptake is rising.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I don’t see a lot of evidence (that tweet aside) that the crisis you’re alleging actually exists although I do think you’re working towards willing it into being. Amplifying the worst elements of messaging rather than the best etc
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Hank Green
If I thought it was one tweet or, say, rare, yep, I wouldn't bother and you'd be right. It kept getting worse! And noticing how such dynamics work in the public sphere is exactly what I do know and worry about. I'm hardly the only one to notice.https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1341165998674567169 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Hank GreenVerified account @hankgreenNot that it wouldn’t prevent that...just that we didn’t know yet. That has quickly morphed into, “It won’t protect against you infecting other people.” Which is also untrue. We just don’t know. We are attempting to communicate uncertainty, but it’s like people can’t hear it.Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
As I said, I take your points and will reflect on how I frame vaccine messaging. I regret that you’re not interested in the impact your framing has on people in other fields trying to help the public understand the vaccines, and the pandemic overall.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
We can all probably do better, but not all of us want to.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I think you overemphasize my impact. My particular constituency—and me sometimes— is perhaps frustrated, even mad at some institutions and maybe even some individual experts, but very, very much wants them to survive and be stronger.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Nobody is going from say, my articles, to not getting vaccinated because I criticized messaging or even was very, very frustrated with some WHO committees. The problem with messaging NYT article identifies though is pretty broad, and happens without wanting to harm. +
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
The individual incentives (media/attention, experts/personality) & the academic tendency (limitations sections, null-hypothesis training) is to emphasize the unknown, the downside. The problem isn't any single one is wrong but the collective consequence tilts in a particular way.
-
-
In this particular case I'm personally genuinely frustrated by the amount of "no change" messaging that I think is unwarranted, and that I believe the amazing upside can be communicated *with the uncertainty* but without underselling these vaccines really are... pretty amazing.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
I made it v clear in my critique that I agree we’re underselling the vaccine. I also made it v clear that the quotes in the NYT article could’ve been used in an excellent perspective piece that effectively argued as much—by someone who knows what they’re doing w vaccine reporting
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.