“The “expert view” vs “the misinformation” is a false dichotomy.

It can be tempting to offer only certainty in times of crisis — but part of being an expert is knowing when to be uncertain.” https://unherd.com/2020/10/how-the-experts-messed-up-on-covid/

Part of why I wanted to start communicating science broadly was to share the delight in the mysterious uncertainties of our world.

That’s a large part of what I enjoy most as a researcher — thinking of confounds, new controls needed, alternative explanations.

Yet when the pandemic hit, I too fell into the trap of speaking too confidently, despite my scientific training that instilled in me to always be skeptical.

But who was I, a non-expert, to go against what all the major public health authorities were saying?

When new evidence came out, I’m proud of how I owned up for being wrong, and explained why my understanding of droplet-based transmission or masks had been misguided.

And I’ve since more than over compensated by devoting excess time and energy to those topics.

And surprisingly people were fine with that. I didn’t lose audience for admitting I was wrong. If anything some people have said they trust me even more.

In fact I agree: a willingness to admit being wrong is one of the top traits I look for when deciding who to trust online.

The easiest way to spot a bad source of information, especially online, is over-confidence! And hostility when confronted with alternative information.

We should be sharing that, and at the same time remembering not to fall into that same pattern just because we have letters.

I fear we miss a huge learning opportunity in not openly discussing these things, and owning up to our misgivings more directly.

One of the main benefits of social media is the opportunity it provides for *conversation*, not just dissemination.

We should be using it to build that rapport with people. We’re gonna need it come vaccine time.

And trust me, those against vaccines have a head start on this.

See, a lot of people talk about this being an “infodemic.”

Ironically, I think this is misleading.

There is not a scarcity of information. There is a scarcity in compelling sharing of good information. And huge gaps in where we do this.

Misinformation gets shared amongst communities of people with other shared values — whether they be rooted in mistrust, doctor dismissal, or concern for their families.

Are scientists, doctors, and public health agencies building the same kind of communities online?

I don’t think so... I think we — scientists, science communicators, public health agencies, and doctors — tend to focus on sharing streams of facts rather than building community.

There are many fantastic exceptions, on this platform and others. And I think more should be encouraged.

We need to share science in stories rooted in empathy, that show our shared humanity. So we can build rapport and, importantly, earn back trust.