Read on Twitter
I understand that emotions are high, but the three part essays by
@JonathanJFuller
@mlipsitch and now
John Ioannidis in @BostonReview
Are truly worth your time [Thread]
What is science in the time of COVID?
Does it vary depending on your lens?
@JonathanJFuller
@mlipsitch and now
John Ioannidis in @BostonReview
Are truly worth your time [Thread]
What is science in the time of COVID?
Does it vary depending on your lens?
These essays are all fundamentally philosophical essays about how scientific facts are translated into policy decisions.
We have to remember that policy is not science. Policy is what we, human beings, decide to do when given facts.
It is bout trade offs, values and uncertainty
We have to remember that policy is not science. Policy is what we, human beings, decide to do when given facts.
It is bout trade offs, values and uncertainty
In the first essay, @JonathanJFuller asks if there are different schools of thought
Models vs. Evidence http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/jonathan-fuller-models-v-evidence
Models vs. Evidence http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/jonathan-fuller-models-v-evidence
In the second essay @mlipsitch makes a full throated defense of there is good science vs. everything else.
PS there is a lot of everything else online these days http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/marc-lipsitch-good-science-good-science
PS there is a lot of everything else online these days http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/marc-lipsitch-good-science-good-science
And in the third essay, John Ioannidis argues that folks with his background do legitimately think differently about COVID19 https://bostonreview.net/science-nature/john-p-ioannidis-totality-evidence
Fascinating series of essays
I think we have to remember that Policy decisions are influenced by science, informed by science, but they are not science. They are a social decision.
I think we have to remember that Policy decisions are influenced by science, informed by science, but they are not science. They are a social decision.
@jflier and I have been hopeful in a series of op-eds in @statnews
That we should include interdisciplinary scholars in these discussions and that we should think broadly about the effects of our actions
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/
and https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/14/underderstanding-covid-19-supernova-human-history-multiple-perspectives/
That we should include interdisciplinary scholars in these discussions and that we should think broadly about the effects of our actions
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/
and https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/14/underderstanding-covid-19-supernova-human-history-multiple-perspectives/
I think it is important to read all these essays
There is much more at stake here than whether the IFR is 0.2 or 0.6; going from there to what we must do at any point in time is not a straight line, is bound to be contentious, and may not have a 'right' answer; only tradeoffs
There is much more at stake here than whether the IFR is 0.2 or 0.6; going from there to what we must do at any point in time is not a straight line, is bound to be contentious, and may not have a 'right' answer; only tradeoffs
