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 -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @andrew_croxford @zeynep and
I think there are some subtle things that can help. E.g. establishing priors. 'We don’t know how long immunity will last.' vs. 'We don’t know how long immunity will last, but if it is like the first SARS coronavirus, it will last for at least several years.'
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @deeptabhattacha @andrew_croxford and
I don't know that the first SARS is a better prior than endemic CoVs frankly but my line from very early on was very good protection for at least 6 months and at least some protection for a much longer time-frame. Also limited
#s of patients from SARS1 studied.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @andrew_croxford and
Yeah we can certainly debate what the most informative prior is. But I do think it helps to provide some context as to our thinking.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @deeptabhattacha @stgoldst and
Totally. Establishing priors and context *really* helps messaging. "We don't yet know how much transmission will be dampened because the data on that part isn't yet fully in, but preliminary results suggest at least somewhat, and most vaccines with such high levels of efficacy.."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @deeptabhattacha and
One of the problems that plagues messaging is how the (often null-hypothesis trained) scientists communicate versus how it is heard. Colloquially, "no evidence for.." is often heard as "evidence that there there is no.." [immunity/benefit etc.] (Not my rules, just the way it is).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
And to follow, I don't think we should be forced to express more certainty than we are comfortable with. But then it helps to give priors as to why we are uncertain. E.g. flu vaccines kinda suck, but MMR is great. Not sure how this one will be. Then people can understand context.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @deeptabhattacha @stgoldst and
Yes, all that. And less of this "people will misbehave" tsk tsk articles. (See another one: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/18/getting-covid-jab-could-prompt-public-abandon-rules-say-scientists/ …) The cautious folk aren't going to burn their masks on day one, and we *should* talk more about how these amazing vaccines will *eventually* allow more normalcy.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Or this. Look, the message is fine, but look how dominant it is. Where is the well-deserved celebration? Where's the emphasis on the very high efficacy even for *any* disease, let alone "seriously"? This isn't good framing at all. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/19/958472437/the-science-behind-how-covid-19-vaccines-work …pic.twitter.com/bcFFXGvbYJ
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @deeptabhattacha and
100%. Let's stop talking about vaccines as if they are under attack. The Overton Window for this subject has moved too far towards insanity, let's move it back please. We should rightfully talk up the huge improvement in all our lives that these vaccines will bring about.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.