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 -
It's a very difficult information landscape for most people to navigate. Even experts of all stripes get confused or locked into outdated models of the evidence constantly. I try not to blame anyone for even crazy seeming ideas about the pandemic, we're not organized for this.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
So, this is fascinating. I think there is legit intra-science disagreement. I tend not to have an opinion on that part as it’s not my field. There is also a tension between what I’m calling philosophical frequentism vs a meta approach: focusing on mechanisms, priors, trade-offs.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I’m definitely im favor of the ladder and waded into stuff there—not always welcome.
It will be very interesting to go back retrospectively, and to separate the clinical reflexes (valid in their domain: do no harm, null hypothesis) from public health approaches (trade-offs).1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I'm surprised you call it a public health approach though, since so much of Western public health has been lagging behind accumulating evidence while waiting for a moment of certainty. Isn't that what you're calling the "clinical" approach to evidence (e.g. wait for the RCT)?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Well, okay, maybe an idealized public health approach where you do not necessarily pretend you can resolve every last intra-science disagreement, but work with preponderance of evidence and trade-offs? I've been reading Japan's epi documents since February and .. amazing.
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.