Vaccines remain effective against every outcome, including receiving the diagnosis of COVID. Based off of the past month in BC.
For overwhelming our hospital system (Each case requires special procedures and staffing, draining our resource), massive protection.
/1
We will see the case protection numbers increase again, as unvaccinated people continue to get infected at a high rate with this Omicron spread, whereas vaccinated people peaked and are now well below the unvax rate once again.
/2
There are 710,138 unvaccinated eligible British Columbians. A portion of these people can not be vaccinated due to medical issues, but the majority can be. Please do your part and #getvaccinated.
This is the "error" that vaccine denialists and antivaxxers make when they point to the brief period of "negative efficacy." By showing the cumulative rate since July, it's plainly obvious that vaccines are astoundingly protective, before we even address testing differences.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So proud of this. My research guru & mentor & boss @QdQwerty and I are proud to present MyHEARTSMAP - A psychosocial tool for the screening and assessment of youth.
It can be filled out by kids 10+ or parents of any age.
This represents countless hours with a dedicated team of @QdQwerty's lab and colleagues, and coworkers. I'm so proud of the final product and, we've demonstrated that a tool like this can be completed by kids or parents with good reliability to interview & assessment.
/2
On a personal note, working with @QdQwerty is a dream; one of the smartest, kindest, ethical, and principled people I've ever worked with. Honoured to be part of her team.
/3
Let's talk today about "burden of proof" re: claims, because I see much of my advocacy misconstrued.
Let's look at two claims:
* Online schooling is harmful to kids
* Online schooling is beneficial to kids
/1
The first claim requires evidence that, in terms of net outcomes, online schooling causes more harm than not online schooling.
Most of the evidence that I present is evidence *against this claim*, to counter the everpresent narrative of selected publications that support it.
/2
As well, I criticize the evidence itself as it doesn't exactly establish harm, causative harm, or in many cases, even compare online schooled kids to in person school kids.
Challenging the evidence is challenging **that claim**, that "online schooling is harmful to kids"
/3
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
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
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 am still digesting an interesting report, but it makes me wonder... this is beyond my expertise or region, but I found this graph shocking.
What if the narrative we are being told about the needs of in person schooling is being disproportionately told by one demographic?
/1
Note: I do not have the expertise or knowledge to vet this, and I do not understand all of the political and social contexts that the report discusses.
I believe ( and i could be wrong ) that this is produced by a teachers union and might have some biases in it. Though i do not understand the issue well at all.
Do we have a good summary of surveys of parents/family's preference broken down by race and income?
This is a meta-analysis of the longitudinal studies done during the first months of the pandemic. It is a *systematic* review in which they methodically went through ALL the research they could find.
/1
Here are the results they reported from their systematic review.
/2
My frustration is that this is how science is performed, yet major organizations that know better are simply selecting the points they want. I have no doubt that they would cite "evidence of an increase" but ignore the rest of this metaanalysis.
/3
I am more than happy to have so many people resonate with my messages and follow me (and I am SO GRATEFUL for followers!!!), but I cannot screen the # of followers I've gained in the past few days (6000ish). So, I'm going to play a game:
"Please unfollow me if..."
(A THREAD)
Please unfollow me if you wish to argue against Black Lives Mattering (literally the phrase too) or how we as Canadians live on the stolen and unceded land of Indigenous people, or you wish to argue against the phrase: "Trans women are women and trans men are men."
/1
Please unfollow me if you believe that "wokeism" is ruining science or whatever field you care about, and not the generations of lopsided power that has created significant systemic discrimination.
/2