A truly laughable attempt by @TracyBethHoeg to pretend the divisions this Nature article points to aren't between her and every other expert quoted. 🧵 
Hoeg is first quoted saying the rates in schools aren't higher than rates in the communities a point the article is quick to distinguish from what actually matters: whether transmission is occurring in schools.
In a familiar move, Hoeg goes on to pretend the 2 *confirmed* transmission cases reported in a soon-to-be-published study, represent all of the cases that occurred in the schools. The article again is quick to call her bluff by bringing up the importance of surveillence testing.
Hoeg's bold claim that "American media" is perpetuating the falsehood that "Covid is dangerous", is quickly shot down by an entire paragraph devoted to Covid's dangers including how many kids it has killed, the possibility of MIS-C and Long Covid.
When Hoeg brings up her WaPo Op-Ed co-authored with @MonicaGandhi9, the article is quick to introduce us to an epidemiologist at the University of Texas "who found the op-ed unconvincing" because it "doesn’t give the full story”.
Even when the article does find someone for Hoeg to agree with, unsurprisingly @MonicaGandhi9, the article is nonetheless quick to point out the possibility that they are both wrong given the evidence out of the UK.
It would be nice to think Hoeg recognizes this "very well done article" is well done because it doesn't just point out Hoeg's cherry-picking, but demonstrates how not to do that: by presenting both the limitations of the data Hoeg relies on as well as the full body of evidence.
The Nature article is here.
nature.com/articles/d4158…
nature.com/articles/d4158…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
