You notice a minority of scientists were early to advocate: 1. asymptomatic COVID19 occurs 2. masks are useful 3. rapid tests are useful Yet opposition on each came from other scientists. Why? Is it because training has promoted p<0.05 to the point we can't do Baynesian anymore?
I would actually say it wasn’t conservative. It was a very risky proposition to do that for some of the things we didn’t—wait when there was a preponderance of evidence of the risk and when we faced exponential growth.
-
-
In my view, it was a fairly conservative suggestion to say we should start wearing masks and start at least being careful indoors. Of course, for injecting drugs into people, we need clinical trials and robust safety data. That’s different.
-
we're in agreement. i'd push back on Michael characterizing scientific thinking too broadly. these different issues have different levels of evidence and confidence. to me scientists have largely made good calls while our institutions have failed.
- 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.