Just started watching this #TownHall w/Trump. The first 20 min are so frustrating. This interviewer is obsessed w/masks but she's citing data that itself says the results are of "low certainty" and inconclusive bc CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Even CDCs own site says this...
The research basically says, "well masks got mandated at this date, and the cases went down on this date...so yeah. also correlation is not causation, and we don't know if this is bc of masks or bc of other measures".

People then use this to wrongly justify their own beliefs...
Additionally, this interviewer goes on to say, "estimates say 10% of the country got covid, that means 90% are vulnerable".

This is so stupid. That does NOT mean 90% are vulnerable. That means 90% COULD be vulnerable. The susceptible pop is likely a hell of a lot lower...
Then she asks him about herd immunity. Wtf?

Why are we asking candidates who are NOT scientists these types of questions? I don't even think SHE even knows any of this science so why is she asking any of these questions?

This is what is killing science & trust in it.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Critical Critical Theory

Critical Critical Theory Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CCRTheory

17 Oct
If we put this finding along w/findings that show immunity could last up to 4mo:

-nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
-immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/52/e…
-medrxiv.org/content/10.110… (PREPRINT but similar results)

along with the hypothesis that...🧵
If the virus was in our population well before we began to detect it, it is curious to wonder how many people had already been infected...

& if these SP estimates are low estimates bc, for ex, we might miss the milder or recovered (a)symptomatics (bmj.com/content/370/bm…)...
..I wonder what that means in context of where we are & how we perceive the threat. It could mean that not only are we underestimating the true # of infections but IFR rate would drop along w/CFR rate

It should make us stop & wonder whether this is an alt path forward, ie GBD Image
Read 5 tweets
16 Oct
"It's really disheartening to see the scientific community suppress ppl who didn't agree w/the folks who control the msging. Fauci and Birx have 1 view of the science, but it is not the only view." - Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

@gbdeclaration

"When people say 'follow the science' what they often mean is censor scientists who don't agree with some scientists, the people who are controlling the policy" - Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

Science is nothing without discourse. Democracy is nothing without debate.
"In the US we don't have a national policy, we couldn't because we have federalism. We have state policies"

This is KEY to understand. Our government doesn't operate like a centralized authoritarian regime. State gov is most responsible for how they handled Covid response.
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
@PolitiFact apparently fact-checked the comments made about the CDC mask study politifact.com/factchecks/202… written by Bill McCarthy

Here is the study: cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6…

Should we fact-check PolitiFact as well...? 🧵
"It's from a very small sample...that may not be representative"

Small sample sizes are susceptible to bias. The smaller they are, the less representative and more biased. Self-reports are also heavily biased and unreliable. Let's remember this.

RATING: True Image
Ok, so here we learn that the CDC wasn't measuring mask effectiveness (true), and yet we'll see people drawing conclusions about mask effectiveness from this study.

In fact Politifact themselves do this in politifact.com/factchecks/202… written by Noah Y. Kim

RATING: Misleading Image
Read 24 tweets
15 Oct
What is GBD really promoting? Isolation, targeted testing+tracing+screening, reallocation of resources to bolster the aforementioned efforts, using the ~0.0003 IFR estimated for <49yo in order to allow natural immunity,...
...leverage SP studies indicating IgG lvls up to 90d post-symptoms, prevent unnecessary indiscriminate closures of SBAs, prevent spikes in unemployment, prevent child abuse (), prevent suicides+famine+missed screenings+drug abuse+inc in addictions...
1 diff btw the plans is that Gregg is advocating for universal mask wearing. Ignoring the fact that most studies showing any benefits at the public health lvl are of low certainty (even the one on CDC - cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6…), how do you plan on enforcing this? Mandates? Image
Read 10 tweets
15 Oct
Common concern is that not all vulnerable can be isolated bc "ppl make mistakes". This is true regardless of lockdown protocol u use - gen or targeted. Diff is that w/targeted approach, u don't end up accruing all the other damages assoc w/indiscriminate sol'ns...
Other damages: SBA closures, unemployment, child abuse, sex abuse, mental health issues, suicides, addiction, missed medical procedures, famine etc

Efficient tracing/testing in targeted approach in order to isolate what can prevent from spreading seems a better approach...
Clear dissemination of protective protocols for vulnerable & their primary contacts seems important. From what I can tell, all this constant lockdown, reopen, lockdown, reopen is doing is spreading the deaths across a larger window while damaging the economy + ⬆️ health risks...
Read 4 tweets
13 Oct
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downlo…

In 2006, the WHO Writing Group said, "Ill persons should remain home when they first become symptomatic, but forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.", about influenza pandemic
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

What data changed? ImageImageImage
And this is what the WHO had to say about mask studies (from the NCBI paper)

I wonder what data changed so drastically to validate the lvl of politicization of mask efficacy. It doesn't add up. If we were rlly listening to the science, how does this study fit the narrative? Image
We began this pandemic w/a consensus that lockdown was only intended to flatten the curve, which afaik it did. After that point, it seems that we should have switched to a more targeted approach for protecting the vulnerable. That's what the science told us to do.

So why then...
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!