Dr. Maddow does science
-
These claims were pretty silly and irresponsible.
But those who say "the vaccines don't work" because virus transmission and infection can still occur are equally silly and irresponsible.
What counts is the rate at which transmission and infection are reduced.
I don't quite get why, for so many people, only the two unlikely extremes (either it blocks transmission and infection 100%, or it doesn't work at all) seem to exist.
-
These claims were pretty silly and irresponsible.
But those who say "the vaccines don't work" because virus transmission and infection can still occur are equally silly and irresponsible.
What counts is the rate at which transmission and infection are reduced.
I don't quite get why, for so many people, only the two unlikely extremes (either it blocks transmission and infection 100%, or it doesn't work at all) seem to exist.
@klaus said in Dr. Maddow does science:
These claims were pretty silly and irresponsible.
But those who say "the vaccines don't work" because virus transmission and infection can still occur are equally silly and irresponsible.
Yes.
What counts is the rate at which transmission and infection are reduced.
What also counts is that Twitter hasn't suspended these people for passing misleading information.
-
@klaus said in Dr. Maddow does science:
These claims were pretty silly and irresponsible.
But those who say "the vaccines don't work" because virus transmission and infection can still occur are equally silly and irresponsible.
Yes.
What counts is the rate at which transmission and infection are reduced.
What also counts is that Twitter hasn't suspended these people for passing misleading information.
@george-k said in Dr. Maddow does science:
What also counts is that Twitter hasn't suspended these people for passing misleading information.
I have no particular reason to defend these people, but one difference one could say in their defense is that the properties of the vaccines were not clear in the beginning, and to think that it'll stop transmission and infection is not an entirely unreasonable default assumption. That's different from actually having a lot of hard data about how the vaccines influence transmission and infection and then claiming that it is actually something else.
-
@george-k said in Dr. Maddow does science:
What also counts is that Twitter hasn't suspended these people for passing misleading information.
I have no particular reason to defend these people, but one difference one could say in their defense is that the properties of the vaccines were not clear in the beginning, and to think that it'll stop transmission and infection is not an entirely unreasonable default assumption. That's different from actually having a lot of hard data about how the vaccines influence transmission and infection and then claiming that it is actually something else.
@klaus said in Dr. Maddow does science:
I have no particular reason to defend these people, but one difference one could say in their defense is that the properties of the vaccines were not clear in the beginning, and to think that it'll stop transmission and infection is not an entirely unreasonable default assumption.
Fair enough.
She said that at the end of March of 2021.
ETA:
But, in the defense of me, that tweet is clearly false information given the knowledge we have now. Why is it still up?
-
@klaus said in Dr. Maddow does science:
I have no particular reason to defend these people, but one difference one could say in their defense is that the properties of the vaccines were not clear in the beginning, and to think that it'll stop transmission and infection is not an entirely unreasonable default assumption.
Fair enough.
She said that at the end of March of 2021.
ETA:
But, in the defense of me, that tweet is clearly false information given the knowledge we have now. Why is it still up?
@george-k said in Dr. Maddow does science:
@klaus said in Dr. Maddow does science:
I have no particular reason to defend these people, but one difference one could say in their defense is that the properties of the vaccines were not clear in the beginning, and to think that it'll stop transmission and infection is not an entirely unreasonable default assumption.
Fair enough.
She said that at the end of March of 2021.
ETA:
But, in the defense of me, that tweet is clearly false information given the knowledge we have now. Why is it still up?
Because it’s factually false, but emotionally true.
They would argue that manipulating people into getting the vaccine is a public good since it DOES help slow the spread of previous variants and it doesn’t harm the person to get the vaccine in their estimation. So a harmless factual error that may accomplish some good…
The Brad
-
@george-k said in Dr. Maddow does science:
@klaus said in Dr. Maddow does science:
I have no particular reason to defend these people, but one difference one could say in their defense is that the properties of the vaccines were not clear in the beginning, and to think that it'll stop transmission and infection is not an entirely unreasonable default assumption.
Fair enough.
She said that at the end of March of 2021.
ETA:
But, in the defense of me, that tweet is clearly false information given the knowledge we have now. Why is it still up?
Because it’s factually false, but emotionally true.
They would argue that manipulating people into getting the vaccine is a public good since it DOES help slow the spread of previous variants and it doesn’t harm the person to get the vaccine in their estimation. So a harmless factual error that may accomplish some good…
@lufins-dad said in Dr. Maddow does science:
So a harmless factual error that may accomplish some good…
IOW, "Fake but accurate?"
-
@lufins-dad said in Dr. Maddow does science:
So a harmless factual error that may accomplish some good…
IOW, "Fake but accurate?"
@george-k said in Dr. Maddow does science:
@lufins-dad said in Dr. Maddow does science:
So a harmless factual error that may accomplish some good…
IOW, "Fake but accurate?"
Emotionally, yes.
