Racism in all forms is shitty, damaging, and, importantly, conducive to *more racism*. Do not subcategorize racism by the groups it targets so you can count some offenses as lesser or more acceptable. There is no racism-lite. There is no blonde roast racism. 1/
The morning after the 2016 election, I was biking to work when I suddenly saw an oblong cylinder whiz by, and a splatter of some liquid touch my face. A white man in a white truck had hurled his cup of coffee at my head. He screamed "America!" and drove away. 2/
Confused and numb, I passed this story on to a college friend I was already texting at the time about something science-y. Meaning well, she jokingly wrote back, "but... at least most people would say you're a model minority!"
It did not make me feel better. 3/
Individual acts need to be acknowledged and talked about and given their due. This is not a game of hand-wringing comparisons; it is not a measuring contest. Your ruler is not your most useful tool right now; put it away. 4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wrote about post-vaccination infections, also known as breakthrough cases. These infections are now being reported across the country; the CDC has told me that a national database is also in the works. 1/
These cases are rare, but important, and essential to track in detail. They are also entirely expected.
We know that vaccines are not 100% perfect at *anything*; while they prevent symptoms, hospitalizations, and death and extraordinary and commendable rates... 2/
Some of those cases will still occur, and that's okay. The point is, far *fewer* of them will happen in the wake of vaccination. That's incredible and worth being celebrated.
That does not mean we should ignore the outliers. 3/
Discussion's great; it's a natural part of science. But we need to send the right messages now, to ensure that if a change IS needed further down the road, people won't hear it as another false cry of wolf. 2/
This issue is complicated. I don't think there's one answer. I'm not even sure there is one dosing regimen that will somehow turn out to be the "best." But it's always worth considering just how high the stakes are, as the public debate continues. 3/
The variants are concerning, to be sure. But let's not forget that immune responses aren't all or nothing. I wrote about how it takes a lot more than a couple mutations to stump B cells and T cells.
In our attempt to contain one virus, we silenced several others. I wrote about this year's bizarre flu season—our quietest in years—and what it could mean for our future. 1/4
One big takeaway from this? Masking and distancing work. Neither is a silver bullet, but viruses that have been with us for a while, like flu viruses, are easier targets than something new and unwieldy, like the coronavirus. 2/4
What happened this year with the flu is perhaps a harbinger of what we could accomplish next: with other viruses, new or old, if we decide to commit. 3/4
One last story for @nytimes : a dive into the amazing field of virus physics.
Virology isn't just a life scientist's game. To truly understand viruses, we need to understand how they build themselves — then learn to tear them apart. 1/
Virology isn't just about proteins and genes. It's about forces. It's about chaos and order. It's about the improbability of teeny, tiny structures coming together in ways we can't explain. It's incredible. 2/
I am so grateful to @AlxndriaTH3Gr8 for introducing me to this world and walking me through it. Also to Vinny Manoharan, Juan Perilla, Jodi Hadden-Perilla, Bill Gelbart, Adam Zlotnick, Jasmine Cubuk, @royalzandi@BustamanteLab for sharing their work. 3/
It's 2021! Time for a crash course in four terms that I often see mixed up when people talk about testing: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value.
These terms help us talk about how accurate a test is, but from different viewpoints. 1/
Viewpoint 1 is about the status of the person taking the test. Are they infected, or not infected? How good is the test at identifying these people? That's sensitivity/specificity. 2/
A test that is very *sensitive* will be very good at accurately identifying people who are infected.
A test that is very *specific* will be very good at accurately ruling out infection in people who are not infected. 3/