Thread by @VPrasadMDMPH, I understand that emotions are high, but the three part essays by@JonathanJFuller [...]

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?

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

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 v. Evidence

COVID-19 has revealed a contest between two competing philosophies of scientific knowledge. To manage the crisis, we must draw on both.

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

Good Science Is Good Science

For the sake of both science and action in the COVID-19 pandemic, we need collaboration among specialists, not sects.

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

The Totality of the Evidence

As policymakers debate the right response to COVID-19, they must take seriously the harms of pandemic policies, not just their benefits.

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.

@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/

Understanding Covid-19, a 'supernova in human history' - STAT

Understanding the full impact of Covid-19 will take the work of economists, epidemiologists, historians, philosophers, sociologists, and many others.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/

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

You can follow @VPrasadMDMPH.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: