its remarkable how frequently garret gets shit wrong even by the low standards of science journalismhttps://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1359225865939406857 …
-
-
Replying to @halvorz
I muted her and EFD back in the days of snakes and HIV inserts. They at least don't have some weird committed ideology like the GBD folks but...very low signal:noise
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Same muting strategy. Some apocalyptic tweets from people, including this pair (and, ahem, a former CDC director (and head of IHME)) I think say more about their own outlook on life than they do about the science or data.
1 reply 2 retweets 26 likes -
But how are people not reading all the papers supposed to navigate this? Sources look legit enough. I have friends ready to jump off the ledge because they think this will never end because "vaccines don't prevent transmission" or "variants have made them six-fold less effective"
4 replies 4 retweets 49 likes -
idk I'm a fairly non-confrontational person but it might help if scientists and journalists were more willing to call bullshit on this stuff (like you are), even if the bullshitter is a Big Name
3 replies 1 retweet 28 likes -
Heh. I think I've dramatically reduced my post-pandemic cocktail party invitations. That said, if I notice a minor thing, I usually DM or just reply politely. Mistakes happen, I make them too. It's the consistently wrong/erroneous ones that *never* correct that get me to snap.
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Also I wish more of the people with the better credentials did the correcting more often tbh. Why should people believe me rather than the, ahem, Harvard credentialed


dude who appears to be explaining preprints?3 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
(I know people think the problem is that he's a nutritional epi, but I completely dispute that's the problem. He's perfectly capable of understanding the papers he's clearly misrepresenting. The problem isn't the incorrect credential, which is why it's hard for ordinary people).
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Agreed that the problem isn't his pedigree, it's his kinda low science comprehension and ridiculously high false positive rate for alarming a large audience. EFD is way more "in his lane" than people who make important & meaningful contributions like
@youyanggu1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Twitter recommends him in its COVID experts lists. I think the misrepresentations are both egregious enough and always in the same direction that the issue is clearly more than credentials (more than sufficient to prevent him from doing what he does).
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.