B.1.1.529
I'm fully bracing for downvotes, but I really think that having professional immunologists/scientists/etc. interacting directly with Twitter masses off of fresh-off-the-presses data (weak data, at that) is a mistake. For a few reasons: (a) it creates an environment where everyone wants to "break the news" first, even if it's full of hot takes, incorrect, or incendiary. This isn't a big deal when breaking who the Kardashians are dating, but it's very dangerous when talking about public health policy. And (b), there's zero accountability. If this entire thread ends up being wrong -- as so many of these Twitter hot takes have been proven to be wrong from last year -- no one cares. It's memory holed, and the good professor is just happy for the 15-minute limelight <i>today</i>, without worrying about what happens <i>tomorrow</i>.<p>I know this is not a particularly popular opinion, but I think we have things like peer review, the three sigma rule of thumb, and so on, for good reason. It's disappointing to see scientists spew out an entire thread and then cap it off with "just my opinion, so who knows" -- just as dishonest as crypto pumpers and their "not financial advice" disclaimers. Give me a break.<p>I'm happy you got your Twitter engagement though, that's what it's all about.