I want to explain to you, @drlucymcbride, “what the heck happened”; the racist attacks & the Town Hall’s cancellation.
I want to explain in case you really don’t know.
I want to explain because we all fail.
I want to explain because the people you hurt deserve your apology. 🧵
I want to explain there is no “politely asking to join a panel” at the last minute; the event you intruded yourself on was months in the making and represented the work of many hands.
Do you see how affixing the word “politely” to “asking” doesn’t change that fact?
I want to explain that when a person like Dr. Salas-Ramirez is singled out for a “fight”, it’s not okay to respond as if you want to join that.
Do you see how your response helped draw battle lines?
I want to explain that it is not okay to point fingers publicly at the participants you think are responsible for keeping you out of an event you had no place in.
Do you see how that invited anger and left those participants open to attack?
I want to explain that those involved chose a topic & format. It's not okay for you to redefine the Town Hall as deficiently in want of your point of view.
Do you see how that invites people to believe they were unrepresented as opposed to just needing to wait their turn?
I want to explain that announcing on Twitter that “the other organizers said ‘no’” ….
…. is not “respectfully taking no for an answer”.
Do you see how it’s publicly announcing to your followers who you believe is at fault for leaving you out of something you had no place in?
I want to explain that if you take the time to read your replies, then by all means thank the people whose kindness you are grateful for.
But it is just as important to reply to those who may need you to calm their anxieties; after all, calm is what you say you provide.
Do you see how not calming the anxiety of someone who called a participant “the devil incarnate” seems like an endorsement?
I want to explain to you that the person who was called “the devil incarnate” without redress by you was one of the participants singled out for the most vicious attacks. Do you see your hand in creating that and can you see how your hand might have prevented that?
You say you don’t know "what the heck happened".
I wanted to tell you because you should know.
I want to believe you will do the right thing.
I want to believe you know what that is.
I want to believe that when it’s in your power to do so, you won’t let this happen again.
End

• • •

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

Keep Current with Loretta Torrago

Loretta Torrago 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 @Loretta_Torrago

11 Dec
If you want to know why it's worth protecting kids from Covid, here's your answer. 🧵
The answer to “Why protect kids?” has to do with the risks of becoming infected. But some people, like @DLeonhardt, hide the risks of pediatric infection in adverse outcomes per 100K. Image
This is like building a haystack around a needle. The risk of poor outcomes all but disappears because it is buried under a preponderance of uninfected people.
Read 7 tweets
7 Dec
We may have "opened the schools" but we still haven't made them accessible.
Yesterday my medically vulnerable son told me:
"Either I ruin my life avoiding Covid or Covid ruins my life. Either way I am suffering."
It is not fine. 🧵
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
If there is “no widespread crisis” in the classrooms, it’s because there is no shared crisis. Covid has been framed as a problem for those with “pre-existing conditions.” Image
The result is that, across the US, but in isolation from each other, & out of view of the able-bodied, momentous conversations are taking place inside homes, over dinner & at the kitchen table.
Read 26 tweets
11 Nov
This Long Covid study's reliance on serology derails its claim to have a control goup. What's more, it treats beliefs as *inventors of reality* while overlooking that typically beliefs are *reflections of* reality.
Laypeople call this "gaslighting".🧵
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamai…
1. An Out of Control Control Group

In this study, participants are given serology tests.
Participants are notified of the results and asked if they believe they had Covid, a question that just as well could be phrased as: Do you believe the test results?
Read 25 tweets
30 Oct
Having built a haystack around school opening data, @ProfEmilyOster challenges readers to find the difference remote or in-person makes to community case rates. You can if you search, but first let's look at the haystack in which the difference is buried🧵 nature.com/articles/s4159…
The authors’ describe the study:
“The aim of this national, retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of school mode and opening to in-person education on subsequent changes in community incidence of SARS-CoV-2.”
The school modes the authors consider are: traditional (in-person), virtual and hybrid. The authors conclude that learning modes make no statistically significant difference to incidence of Covid in a community.
Read 42 tweets
16 Oct
It’s déjà vu all over again as @TracyBethHoeg does the same dumpster dive for Ontario’s “Adverse Events Following Immunization” (AEFI) reporting system that she did for VAERS. Naturally, there are problems. 🧵
As a brief reminder, Hoeg used the raw data of VAERS, despite its numerous disclaimers against doing so, allegedly to extract cases of myocarditis case investigators might have missed. It doesn’t go well.
sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of…
Turning her sights on Ontario, Hoeg doubles down on the mistake; this time not even doing the slightest investigation into Ontario’s AEFI reports (and by “slightest investigation” I mean reading the report) but instead using its raw, unadjudicated data to establish case rates.
Read 15 tweets
15 Oct
1.
So the VE of 95% is in terms of hospitalizations only which is the only outcome he considers. Probably in terms of hospitalized or not, boosters might not move the needle much *if* boosters waned at a similar rate. Image
2.
But not everyone thinks of the 3rd shot as a booster but more as the final shot in a 3-dose regimen. If that’s right, there wouldn’t be the same waning after 3 that we see after 2.
3.
If the 3rd shot increased durability, then it reduces hospitalizations over whatever the time-frame to a actual booster (shot #4) would be. That adds up.
Faust also assumes myocarditis rates for 3rd shot = rates for 2nd shots which likely isn't true.
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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(