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.
-
-
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 Even experts of all stripes get confused or locked into outdated models of the evidence constantly.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 -
Philosophical frequentism = dichotomization into "known fact" and "no / not enough evidence for claim"?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah. “We have no idea if infection confers any immunity” in spring. “We have no idea if vaccines will reduce transmission” now. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with “we don’t know enough to change policy yet.” But that’s different than we have no idea.
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Yeah, I've been trying to figure out a less conflictual language for talking about these biases that different kinds of experts have. Like, it seemed really hard to convince some established (smart, knowledgeable) virologists that VoCs with clusters of RBD muts mattered...why?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
some factors I suspect played a role: history of overblown studies of this sort which reinforces the knee jerk skepticism that tends to come with decades of experience unfamiliarity w evolutionary virology not used to analyzing data the Twitter way
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
basically every viral+microbial evo person I saw who spends a lot of time on twitter called it pretty fast
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I think the skeptics were slow to incorporate all the diff data available so just went w their (understandably strong!) priors
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
There’s a particular skill in incorporating rapidly incoming, incomplete and contested knowledge into policy. That’s my biggest beef with the CDC and the WHO. They’re very-well positioned to do just that—quickly. I get that they were both hampered. But no person can replace that.
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.