Read on Twitter
A (long!) thread about a tweet that raises many of the questions that have been central to http://SciBeh.org 's concerns https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1314148449244319745
SciBeh started with attempts to prompt discussion on how behavioural scientists should best respond to the crisis.
https://psyarxiv.com/hsxdk/
which led to the present environment of @SciBeh, our Reddits and the SciBeh database of behavioural science relevant COVID material
https://psyarxiv.com/hsxdk/
which led to the present environment of @SciBeh, our Reddits and the SciBeh database of behavioural science relevant COVID material
key early concerns were where we might draw the line (if at all) at scientists being "too political" https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/g6iz2b/for_scientists_what_is_too_political/
and what kind of "expertise" behavioural scientists have in this pandemic, and how that should shape scientists role https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/fxmo3u/what_constitutes_relevant_expertise/
a further, pressing, concern given scibeh's goals of developing a transparent, online community suitable for scientific exchange building from extant social media has been how to conduct discourse and build an environment in which debate can happen in a constructive
fashion that promotes good science, and good evidence for policy. For that to work, it is crucial that we find a tone that will not lead people to withdraw or silence voices with other perspectives. But this is far from easy, given that such exchanges may involve critique...
which is even more difficult to receive when public.
None of these issues are resolved, and all merit further debate. So one motivation in highlighting (and critiquing) this tweet is not just to engage and present a particular view, but also to reinvigorate those debates:
None of these issues are resolved, and all merit further debate. So one motivation in highlighting (and critiquing) this tweet is not just to engage and present a particular view, but also to reinvigorate those debates:
So, the tweet itself:
it highlights a piece published with the authors' academic affiliations on a website started by a divisive, U.K. commentator - Toby Young (for those outside the UK, wikipedia or simply Google will let you form your own opinion), ('too political'?)
it highlights a piece published with the authors' academic affiliations on a website started by a divisive, U.K. commentator - Toby Young (for those outside the UK, wikipedia or simply Google will let you form your own opinion), ('too political'?)
it has the central argument:
"the massive increase in ‘new cases’ is almost completely explained by factors that have nothing to do with an increasing population health risk. New cases are simply the count of those who get a positive test result. But almost all of those
"the massive increase in ‘new cases’ is almost completely explained by factors that have nothing to do with an increasing population health risk. New cases are simply the count of those who get a positive test result. But almost all of those
– as can be seen from the university student ‘cases’ – are either asymptomatic or false positives., i.e. they do not – and will not – show any symptoms of a ‘COVID-19 illness’. Nor will they ‘spread the virus’ to others."
('expertise?')
('expertise?')
To me, it makes multiple statements outside the core expertise of the behavioural scientist:
1. 'almost all of those will not show any symptoms of a C-19 illness'
2. 'they will not 'spread the virus'
3. implication that rise in numbers doesn't suggest increasing population risk
1. 'almost all of those will not show any symptoms of a C-19 illness'
2. 'they will not 'spread the virus'
3. implication that rise in numbers doesn't suggest increasing population risk
1 and 2, from my own reading of the literature are wrong, but equally outside my own core competence https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346
but I feel I can evaluate argument itself. My concern:
Even if 1 & 2 were true, unless the proportion of asymptomatic cases and FPs are rising disproportionally, a rise must mean *other cases* are also going up
and *these* will cause illness, death and further spread
Even if 1 & 2 were true, unless the proportion of asymptomatic cases and FPs are rising disproportionally, a rise must mean *other cases* are also going up
and *these* will cause illness, death and further spread
AND- rises have (indirect) public health implications if contact tracing and testing reaches breaking point
(taking away ability for targeted stopping of transmission)
(taking away ability for targeted stopping of transmission)
finally, in the interest of full disclosure: @profnfenton is a much valued collaborator of mine (Ulrike Hahn writing here), adding extra complexity to public exchange of argument. But the piece was put out on Twitter presumably to prompt public debate, and such debate is one of
scibeh's goals. So, all comments and thoughts welcome- both here and on the reddits, both on argument itself and the meta-science issues raised.
It would be good to continue moving forward debate on the role of behavioural scientists in this crisis.
It would be good to continue moving forward debate on the role of behavioural scientists in this crisis.
