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?
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.
-
There is truth to that, obviously, but also a lot of failures too. A lot of things that go into successful scientific careers in the academy, like grant writing, publishing, clinical medicine etc. are very null-hypothesis oriented. That’s not always right for public health.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Masks would be safe to fail. Not much possible harm. Vax: too conservative on trials, especially Ph3. Could have run simultaneous: single vs dbl, 3 wks vs 6 wks vs 3 mths, embed w/trials approve as data came in. When not diverse enuf, apprv proven groups while expanding divrsty
Thanks. 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.