I guess I'm old-fashioned but I tend to think that when your first instinct is to attack someone's credentials, you don't have a good argument, especially when it comes to complex multidisciplinary policy questions that it's good to have different perspectives on.https://twitter.com/celinegounder/status/1382299663269761024 …
-
1:23Show this thread -
Replying to @NateSilver538
The whole issue here is that *nobody* is an expert on the psychology of vaccine confidence (though I'd trust you over anyone in public health), which is why we should default to making and communicating sane expected-value-based decisions rather than murdering people over voodoo.
19 replies 23 retweets 590 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @NateSilver538
nobody? really? there's a whole field. I do work in it. some people do all their work in it.
5 replies 1 retweet 72 likes -
confident man on the internet who hasn't done the reading is not a good look. neither is engaging in blind appeals to authority, of course. we can do better than this (though maybe not on this hellsite.)
3 replies 1 retweet 37 likes -
There is a field and a lot of study, but I do think nobody can confidently tell us how this one will really play out now. Whatever happened in the before times that we studied... was a really different context. That said, I do find pandemic era studies more relevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yeah, though decisions must be made. I get the clinical impulse (blood clots/brain/very low platelets=that's a WTF combination: see it in AZ, then J&J, yeah WTF) and I get the other calculation (lives lost/suffering because unvaccinated plus clots/complications due to infection).
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.