In the piece, I spell out my own interpretation of what the guidelines (in their totality) imply about CDC's assumptions, and where I think things stand, but it would be really, really helpful if they spelled it out explicitly, and also resolve the various inconsistencies.
-
-
Show this thread
-
It's a common assumption that too much information will confuse the public. I don't even agree, but let's say there is a line for too much detail. However, too little *explanation* can be even more confusing and disempowering because a yes/no usually doesn't cover all contexts.
Show this thread -
Ah. I had not seen this, but
@Trevornoah ranted about it last night, apparently. (ht@wmyfowlkes) "Too complicated" and "It's unreadable", he says. "Even if you are vaccinated, you can only do two more things without a mask on", etc. Yeah, he's right.https://youtu.be/nctWidPTtwI?t=203 …Show this thread -
When I say something is not being understood correctly, a lot of people, including my friends, will say "I understood it" and that I'm being overly-critical. It's different for people who already understand the science, or in the thick of it and following everything.
Show this thread -
I think the Trevor Noah rant below nails it, but you should have seen how much time it took for Atlantic's fact-checkers (Who are good at this! And do this every day!) to try to confirm the chart's various interpretations.https://youtu.be/nctWidPTtwI?t=204 …
Show this thread -
I do outline how I think the rules could be simplified, broadened to match the evidence base, be explained succinctly, and consider both transmission characteristics of the virus and the sociology mask wearing. But the key point is we need clear answers. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/cdc-outdoor-mask-pandemic/618739/ …pic.twitter.com/v37gc1E4Ry
Show this thread -
And why are we still doing this? There needs to be loud and clear communication about all this.https://twitter.com/torrHL/status/1387497475905265665 …
Show this thread -
I get a lot of "why not an abundance of caution"? I'm temperamentally and intellectually on the "precautionary principal is crucial" and "exponentials are cruel" side but after more than a year of data, we can end up misleading about indoor risks through unwarranted caution.
Show this thread -
And here’s a BMJ debate on outdoor masks alone, with
@mugecevik@sdbaral@javid_lab and me.https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1387537518338338816 …
Show this thread -
I want to post our BMJ debate on outdoor masks, with
@javid_lab@mugecevik@sdbaral Highlights from@EricTopol.
This was written last week—before the many recent pieces: that's why they're not referenced! I wish there was more space for such discussions! http://bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1036 …pic.twitter.com/VkP5MBT555
Show this thread -
In the above BMJ piece, we do have more details about the sociology and trade-offs of mask mandates for this phase. For the earlier phase, see our PNAS paper. For aerosol/mitigation connection: our piece in The Lancet is also below. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext …https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118/tab-article-info …
Show this thread -
As our BMJ piece with
@mugecevik and@sdbaral highlights focusing on low but visible risks (outdoors/beaches) is a serious threat to equity and effective mitigations. Most of those infected, sick and dying around the world are poorer frontline workers in workplaces. Indoors.Show this thread
End of conversation
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.