"be right" - but how do you immediately know what is right in all situations. Unsupported claims of certainty do no one any favors.
-
-
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
So what should people not lucky enough to find your threads but run into an


you-know-who thread needlessly scaring people do? How can they figure out why what IMHE said doesn't make sense? CDC is in the right position to get in front of this.2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ChachaMarquis
I'm not the only person doing this. It was just one example. But since people can't pick and choose which scientists to take seriously the implication is we should all stop. The IHME commentary is idiotic and I'd love for media to check with experts before amplifying it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
That implicated wasn't said, stated, implied or something I'd ever advocate for. I'm personally outspoken—sometimes to dissent and discomfort—and have never once advocated for experts not to communicate, and besides, that would just leave more void for snake oil.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
What needs to happen is for the confusing landscape to get better and clearer, especially around the vaccines won't work and pandemic won't end doom (and I can't convince you it's there but I see it, a lot, and it's spreading).
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ChachaMarquis
I believe it's there! I also believe that if experts communicating with the public is incomprehensible due to disagreement in the field (your contention) that the solution is for experts to guard against confusion by holding back from communicating.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Which, yes, we can say only CDC should communicate with the public so there's a single unified voice. That's fine, maybe it's right! But the implication is to get experts out of the public sphere, since they often disagree with each other.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
Not only is there no such implication, and something I'd never advocate for, it is not possible or desirable and the void would be filled with snake oil. I do, however, think you're underestimating how confusing it is out there. Blue checks, Harvard positions, PhDs... It exists.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ChachaMarquis
I think I’ve conceded/agreed that there is confusion out there. I see it as well because I get questions in person and via DM.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I disagree on whether there is such an implication, but content to leave it there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I honestly think it would make things worse.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @ChachaMarquis
I genuinely appreciate you clarifying that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
It would be more of this:https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1354549000247144449 …
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepTop of thread: "REPLAPSE". Gets ~4000 retweets. Thirteen tweets later... "To be clear." "In mice." WebMD. 15 Retweets. Copy-paste from researcher—and even that's cherry-picked—not contextualization of findings or independent evaluation. No way to present a study or be informed. pic.twitter.com/Ch1RsObcrYShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 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.