"First, we suggest the development of networked communities capable of reaching the public at the right time, at the right place, and with the right messenger about vaccine-related information—especially to pre-empt and pre-bunk..." 2/4
"Second, we suggest input is solicited from outside the usual public health agencies. ....
Thus, interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations are essential for developing effective responses." 3/4
"Third, we suggest these networked & coordinated communities are leveraged to counter relevant trends in anti-vaccine efforts. This action will include separating narratives about liberty from anti-vaccine attitudes..." 4/4
The (not peer-reviewed) Hopkins study is everywhere. These critiques worth considering...
"Expert reaction to a preprint looking at the impact of lockdowns, as posted on the John Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences website" sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reactio… via @SMC_London
Much-hyped "lockdowns don't work" analysis needs to be placed in context of broader literature. Other studies have found "lockdowns" (variously defined) have had > impact (egs):
Odd how one (not peer-reviewed) analysis about lockdowns produced so many headlines.
Did this media give same coverage to the many studies (and, to be fair, hard to study well) that have found non-pharmaceutical interventions ("lockdowns") had a big impact?
And enough with the "Vitamin D" hype! There is, for sure, interesting science on point. It is a space we should watch. But much of the research is observational.