Yes, those people exist and you aren't going to scold them into wearing masks. The non-compliant are polarized and non-compliant. In fact, I think we have a better shot with the noncompliant if we express more honest uncertainty.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
these folks are saying they're compliant now but won't be once get they get the shot. and honest uncertainty is exactly what i'm arguing for!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe
So, what part of "let's tell people that vaccines *will* likely reduce transmission, but we're waiting for more data on how much to adjust policy" is not honest uncertainty? Bluntly, I think "we don't know at all" is incorrect certainty.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
you're sayin "likely" here, and I agree with. "Vaccines will likely reduce transmission" and "vaccines will prevent transmission" are VERY DIFFERENT MESSAGES fwiw I agree with "vaccines will likely reduce transmission". Can we agree on science/messaging there?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe @zeynep
*ugh type, ignore the word with in the first sentence sorrrrrry
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe
Okay. So the whole time, not once, not anywhere, have I advocated saying "vaccines will prevent transmission" without a clear "we expect" "likely" "probably" and adding "we're waiting for more data." THAT IS NOT CURRENT MESSAGING. I think it should be.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @reluctantlyjoe
(Even that macaque study had reduced viral loads but anyway). The current messaging is "we don't know" and it is widely interpreted as "they won't" because that's how it communicates—this has been a problem the whole pandemic. The "no evidence" statements need calibration.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @reluctantlyjoe
"We have no evidence of immunity" or "we don't know if infection provides immunity" was the spring message when it should have been "of course we expect infection to provide immunity but we don't know for how long and how strong." The former is heard as "it does NOT."
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @reluctantlyjoe
People who write papers, write grants etc. are used to a frequentist/null-hypothesis language. It's what gets published. It's what gets the grants. I publish, I have grants, I get the language. But it miscommunicates, badly because that's not how how people interpret "don' know."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
we should work on explaining to people what it means to not know! it's how we do most science. and science affects peoples lives (hello current world). glossing over complexity isn't right now or ever! invite people in to the process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Saying "we don't know" rather than "we expect that [insert strong priors]" "It is likely that but we're waiting for data..." is what glosses over complexity. How many people need to tell you that they hear/think vaccines do not prevent transmission? It's what's being messaged.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
fwiw i say "we don't yet know, but we think it's likely...." which I think accurately represents the current state of the data, but emphasizes the need for ongoing NPIs
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe
"We think it's likely" is not in the current messaging or guidelines.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.