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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @stgoldst @ChachaMarquis
I honestly think it would make things worse.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @ChachaMarquis
I genuinely appreciate you clarifying that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
It would be more of this:https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1354549000247144449 …
zeynep tufekci added,
-
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepFirst tweet in thread, with 4000+ retweets and quote tweets. "Good and bad news." (What bad news? It was all-around excellent news). Finally, 22nd tweet with a clarification. Only 37 retweets and quote tweets. Don't do this people. Also don't get your information this way. pic.twitter.com/9jM4mOveYsShow this thread2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Dr. Lander Foquet
And almost nobody finding this. Anyway, I think we need more, not less, but for our institutions to step up (finally! Elections matter!) with active messaging and counter messaging to help navigate. Have a good day!https://twitter.com/lfoquet/status/1354220928519925763 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Dr. Lander Foquet @lfoqueterh.. a mouse expressing human ACE2 (receptor for the virus) via K18 promotor (drives expression) is not the same as an actual human. Compare https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000130234-ACE2/tissue … to https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000111057-KRT18/tissue … (both in human) Wrong again Eric. https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1354122826106740737 …0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
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.