Great piece on @pbsnewshour right now, inc. interview w/ @EricTopol, who notes 1M US cases a day. He notes three reasons: + transmissible variant; waning immunity, & "abandoned mitigation." Mask wearing explicitly recommended, in the piece. Nasal vax discussed, too.
1/2
Reporter explicitly asked if it's a "problem" that so many folks see covid as a cold, & Topol responded w/ one reason that's a big problem.
TY to the reporter for asking the right questions so Topol could answer them.
Bonus tweet: I know this short interview didn't say *everything* it could have. (For ex., there was no mention of the fact that hospitals aren't required to report cases, as a reason hospitalization #s are lower than we might expect.) But many important messages were conveyed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
But "officials acknowledged the return-to-office decision wasn't driven by concerns about productivity. Rather, it was in pursuit of what they called a leadership philosophy."
Um, really? I'll bet it wasn't that either. Much more likely, forced returns are motivated by...
vacant buildings, empty lunch restaurants, and underutilized commuter transport.
"A survey last year by the professional services firm KPMG found two-thirds of CEOs predicting a full return to office by 2026."
🧵 I know some folks want to believe that disregard for the safety of athletes (& others) in Paris is something new & specific to covid, but it's really not. In the US, at least, "pushing through the pain" has been considered a virtue for generations, probably for the same
1/6
reasons it is now (which are often economic). The article below describes t-shirts from the 1990s that boasted slogans like "pain is weakness leaving the body." Not new.
give us warnings we should heed? I have been, throughout my life, & I'm *naturally* "type A," which used to be called "coronary prone personality" or "workaholic" - the truth of which was not lost on me when I had a heart attack while writing an essay in 2022...yet I just kept on
Good op-ed by the Div. of Medical Ethics chair at NYU's Grossman School of Med. But the one thing he neglects to mention is that the lack of appropriate policy & shunting of responsibility onto uninformed individuals mirrors that of governments &...
institutions throughout the pandemic. These Olympics have been the world in microcosm.
He says: "I can’t believe that...doctors, the [IOC], or any national Olympic organization would invoke the rationale that athletes get to decide whether to compete."
Really? Look around you.
(And note that NYU's healthcare system has done the same; pot/kettle.)
He says it's "absurd to leave the final decision to compete at the Olympics to any athlete. They will all say yes. Their focus is on winning, most are young and feel immortal, and they aren’t thinking much...
First, she informs us that she'd done all the right things, until 2023. (She's a Good Person.) But rather than seeing those mitigations as a lifestyle change, she treated them like a diet that gives you a free pass to eat a whole cheesecake after a week of being "virtuous."
2/
"I thought we had all been liberated from pandemic prison," she says, demonstrating how the "just for a little while" thinking pitched by the CDC early on (vs. "for as long as the situation warrants") set her up view masking, testing & vaxxing as a "prison" from which she...
3/
This was obviously a policy failure that we watched unfold in real time. ("Wait! Stop! Come back!" says Willie Wonka.) But it also demonstrates how people selectively trust authority figures when those leaders are...
saying what we want to hear. (This pattern of behavior has also been on clear display during the pandemic: people were suspicious of leaders whom they perceived as restricting freedoms, due to psychological reactance, but once those experts said to unmask & go to the mall,
2/14
the same folks who had been disbelieving suddenly found faith in authorities' messenges again. Ask people why they aren’t masking, & many will give you some variation on "the CDC said I don't need to.")
Fundamentally, this tendency is an example of confirmation bias, but
🧵 Just because something is published doesn't mean it's good science. Below, I'll talk more about how you can evaluate research articles you may come across on social media or that might be cited in the press.
1st, when reading a media article that cites/links to a research pub., look at what the research piece itself says. Journalists may get things wrong or present a biased/incomplete picture. They may imply there's a causal relationship b/t variables when that's not the case.
2/
Second, evaluate the content of the journal article. Is a hypothesis clearly stated? Do the study authors test it in a way that makes sense? What are their conclusions? (You will find those in the paper's "discussion" and "conclusions" sections.)
3/