And COVID has surprised us before with asymptomatic transmission. But, just for clarity. We don’t know if vaccinated people will be a big infection vector. But we will know a lot more about that soon.
-
Show this thread
-
But what I think is so interesting here is how god damn hard it is to communicate uncertainty. We don’t know A TON about covid, but what we don’t know is discarded as useless, or imagined as certainty of the opposite, when actually, unknowns are vital to keep in mind.
56 replies 259 retweets 3,809 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @hankgreen
It would be nice if science communicators communicated in probabilities or best guesses instead of just "we don't know", which makes many different things sound equally probable and is reminiscent of the early covid communications failures
6 replies 3 retweets 67 likes -
Replying to @ChanaMessinger @hankgreen
There is definitely an argument for some institutions taking the "only say things we know basically for sure" approach, but not every single one should
3 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
-
Replying to @hankgreen
Strongly strongly agree. This is my view. I think "there is no evidence for", for instance, tends to be heard and "we have evidence against" instead of "reasonable people can make reasonable guesses if they have some background knowledge"
2 replies 1 retweet 48 likes -
Replying to @ChanaMessinger @hankgreen
My sense is that a lot of science communicators online think of themselves as announcing the optimal message to the masses when instead they should think about it as injecting as much scientific understanding as they can into the ecosystem.
7 replies 10 retweets 144 likes -
I couldn't agree more. I've been trying to give people tools to understand the pandemic rather than messaging for desired behavior.
4 replies 2 retweets 136 likes -
Yes and yes. I’ve been trying to tell people that the message out there has become “it won’t stop you from transmitting” instead of “it probably will, maybe even a lot, but we’re waiting for more data to be sure” and.. getting disbelieved that’s the message out there. But it is!
6 replies 21 retweets 323 likes -
Yes! This! People have twisted the “we don’t have the data to prove it yet” to mean “it doesn’t work”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
As you can see, I was concerned about this even in December, and the messaging has gotten a bit better but as you note, it has still turned into "it doesn't work" partly because of how "we have no evidence" communicates in everyday language plus deliberate misinformers.
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.