Read on Twitter
Below triple digits. This means the wild messages and conspiracy theories re: covid are going to get intense. A THREAD. https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/1288329309522886656
It's clear that a critical part of the Trump campaign - really his only, Hail Mary option - is to discredit the fact that his pandemic response has been the most disastrous eff up in modern history. https://twitter.com/choo_ek/status/1288323431788736513?s=20
So we're going to get a steady counternarrative including
- the pandemic is not so bad
- what data? (while hiding it in the bowels of HHS)
- to the extent it's bad, the bad doctors messed this up by hiding HCQ (why? because um... they're eLiTEs and LiBS)
- the pandemic is not so bad
- what data? (while hiding it in the bowels of HHS)
- to the extent it's bad, the bad doctors messed this up by hiding HCQ (why? because um... they're eLiTEs and LiBS)
Y'all, we need to do a few things. Please.
1. Follow the scientists and public health leaders.
The ones who review the data, explain and support, and include nuance and uncertainty in their discussion, and offer a rational plan of action that values actual lives.
The ones who review the data, explain and support, and include nuance and uncertainty in their discussion, and offer a rational plan of action that values actual lives.
If you know me at all, you know I hate lists, because I always leave out important folks and feel horrible. But I'll share JUST AS A SMALL EXAMPLE people like @angie_rasmussen @EpiEllie @camarajones @nataliexdean @ashishkjha @CT_Bergstrom
2. Read and amplify THEM and their science and their key messages. Lean on them for their rigor, their objectivity, and their patient representation and translation of the science.
3. For the love of all that is holy, please DO NOT HACK THIS STUFF. I know a lot of really smart people are used to having the cool spin on stuff and I love your political commentary but brand new science on a new disease is NOT THE TIME FOR YOUR HOT TAKES.
If you do not understand that a meta-analysis can be shit in, shit out, or the strengths and limitations of observational data, or that CFR is not the same as IFR, just resist the urge, do Step 1 + Step 2.
I am not a virologist, a pandemic expert, or an epidemioloist. That's why 95% of what I post here is Step 1 + Step 2.
4. Finally (and this is the hardest one, bear with me), let's separate out the science from the people. The science is the science is the science. We're in danger of assigning merit to science based on who is holding it and what the study shows. That's not how it works.
The science is the science is the science. And that's why we need the folks in Step #1. Folks who have had plenty of practice having their hypotheses disproven by data, who publish negative studies as a matter of course, can guide us to react with our brains and not our guts.
5. Okay, I lied, there's another one, and it's this: let's be judicious about when to make a BFD about something and when we should give an idea - and the people propagating it - as little oxygen as possible. I often don't have the restraint for this, so let's all try together.
It's clear this campaign will use the tactic of distracting from real evil with fake fluff. We need to avoid chasing every squirrel. We need to figure out the really harmful stuff and go after it, hard. Conserve energy and fight when it matters.
I have spoken.
