Hi all, I've deleted a series of tweets today because I worry about their impact. I will restate the thread with zero snark or attempts at wryness, and without anything OTHER than the point I want to get across.
/1
/1
Why did I delete it?
I worried most about it being misused by those who **distrust the science of covid**.
Why did I tweet it?
Because I care about the science of this pandemic very much, & about the scientific process that has led us to amazing vaccines & approaches.
/2
I worried most about it being misused by those who **distrust the science of covid**.
Why did I tweet it?
Because I care about the science of this pandemic very much, & about the scientific process that has led us to amazing vaccines & approaches.
/2
What did I regret about the tweet?
I wrote it angrily, because media has picked up on an *unequivocal statement* abt school closures effects on mental health when there is a lot of nuance on the data, & the source was a *favourite source* of mine, the Ontario Science table.
/3
I wrote it angrily, because media has picked up on an *unequivocal statement* abt school closures effects on mental health when there is a lot of nuance on the data, & the source was a *favourite source* of mine, the Ontario Science table.
/3
The anger came from the frustration that a group that people turn to for science and trust it, would put out information in such a lopsided away, clearing any nuance as if it didn't exist.
/4
/4
So what did I mean to say?
The Ontario Science Table, a generally excellent source of COVID information, did such a poor slide on the current science on the mental health and the pandemic that it has misled the media and parents and teachers about the state of the science.
/5
The Ontario Science Table, a generally excellent source of COVID information, did such a poor slide on the current science on the mental health and the pandemic that it has misled the media and parents and teachers about the state of the science.
/5
Not only was a peer reviewed report released the very same day that included data that would have certainly been important for such a slide (bad timing, zero fault), but similar data has been available since November in another peer reviewed journal.
/6
/6
The science they did cite on MH impacts of school closures was lopsidedly and unfairly cited, and ignores many aspects of the science. A member of the public, reading it, would conclude that they said it so strongly because the evidence was strong.
/7
/7
There are many pieces of primary evidence and collated evidence (original articles and meta-analyses) that show a mixed bag of outcomes good, neutral, and bad, and **very few** that separate pandemic effects from school closure effects.
/8
/8
The frustration is that there is a *systematic* way to collect and report evidence, and a *narrative* (want to tell a story) way to collect and report evidence. Their slide is the latter not the former. I can't conclude motive but I can certainly identify the result.
/9
/9
I do *not* mean to cause disrespect to the Table, but perhaps they don't or didn't understand the gravity of the misstep they made. It's huge. It's not a small mistake or an oops mistake, it's a massive mistake.
/10
/10
Why does it matter?
Because this might not even be our last wave of the pandemic let alone the last pandemic. If the narrative of the science stands uncorrected & wrongly+ loudly proclaim school closures only harm childrens mental health, we will see more death & illness.
/11
Because this might not even be our last wave of the pandemic let alone the last pandemic. If the narrative of the science stands uncorrected & wrongly+ loudly proclaim school closures only harm childrens mental health, we will see more death & illness.
/11
And that really matters. I strongly believe that other considerations like the spread of the virus, the impact of that, what happens when teachers and parents get sick or die, and what it's like to go to school during this pandemic period, that play in.
/12
/12
I am so frustrated at seeing people publish scientific articles about mental health using the weakest of evidence and making the strongest of statements.
/13
/13
I have rarely ever deleted tweets. I do so only when I'm wrong or worried about the impact of my tweet on wrong things.
I will not delete this tweet, and I have written it in a way such that I am exceedingly proud of it and what it says.
/14
I will not delete this tweet, and I have written it in a way such that I am exceedingly proud of it and what it says.
/14
In the spirit of what science stands for, which is a rigorous, edited, challenged, revised, & systematic pursuit of the truth of our world, I hope it also serves as an olive branch such that the Science Table reach out to other mental health experts to produce a better slide.
/15
/15
Maybe because I have challenged them so publicly and loudly I would not be invited, but there is good science to be read and processed and reporting it accurately and fairly is crucial to maintaining public trust.
/16
/16
Should they ever want their work on mental health and kids reviewed by a colleague and expert who will critically and seriously evaluate the scientific claims of their information, I remain forever at their service.
Contact details are in my biography.
Contact details are in my biography.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
