288 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2023
    1. I assumed, unreflectively, that he had made up the whole thing, simply because for a long time that’s what I would have done.

      Is it possible that many on the far right don't believe science or facts about how people live because they've got a fabulist streak in themselves? They're so used to lying about basic facts about themselves that their first thought is that "everyone else is doing it".

      Now compound this with their utter lack of context as well as their privilege and you've got a terrific cocktail for bad decisions.

  2. Jul 2023
  3. Apr 2023
    1. Aristotle, who had said, many centuries before in Politics (BookVIII): ‘No one would dispute the fact that it is a lawgiver’s prime duty to arrangefor the education of the young. In states where this is not done the quality of theconstitution suffers.’

      Current American climate indicates that Republicans take this quote of Aristotle's to heart, but they're not closely thinking about how they define "education". They're definitely not defining it with respect to John Locke's views in Some Thoughts Concerning Education which encourages political systems that move away from an electorate that is subservient to authority.

      see: https://hypothes.is/a/upfxCtSiEe2wrdd3cOo-Lg for John Locke

  4. Dec 2022
    1. We find that, during the pandemic, no-vax communities became more central in the country-specificdebates and their cross-border connections strengthened, revealing a global Twitter anti-vaccinationnetwork. U.S. users are central in this network, while Russian users also become net exporters ofmisinformation during vaccination roll-out. Interestingly, we find that Twitter’s content moderationefforts, and in particular the suspension of users following the January 6th U.S. Capitol attack, had aworldwide impact in reducing misinformation spread about vaccines. These findings may help publichealth institutions and social media platforms to mitigate the spread of health-related, low-credibleinformation by revealing vulnerable online communities
  5. Sep 2022
  6. Aug 2022
  7. Apr 2022
    1. Allyson Pollock [@AllysonPollock]. (2022, January 4). The health care crisis is of governments making over three decades. Closing half general and acute beds, closing acute hospitals and community services,eviscerating public health, no service planning. Plus unevidenced policies on testing and self isolation of contacts. @dthroat [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/AllysonPollock/status/1478326352516460544

    1. Neuropsychiatrists at UCLA had found a willing partner in Governor Reagan’s California Department of Justice, to the tune of $750,000 (equivalent to roughly $4.5 million today), and a whopping $1.5 million from the state. It was prominently affiliated with researchers like Vernon Mark and Frank Ervin, who had gained scientific fame for their work creating brain implants in human patients to change behavior and motivation; also on board was former LAPD police chief James Fiske, a man known for terrorizing the city’s Black population.

      It looks like Ronald Reagan had issues with mental health care even as far back as the 1970s. This incident at UCLA was just a precursor to defunding state mental health care that was already apparently having issues at the time.

  8. Mar 2022
  9. Feb 2022
    1. Eric Feigl-Ding. (2022, January 17). Pandemic leadership matters. #COVID19 mortality per capita by state. 📍Public health is policy, policy is politics. 📍Human behavior is often driven by misinformation. 📍Misinformation is often driven by politics. 📍Politics can be changed by voting—Unless voters can’t. Https://t.co/pFkndQZrfr [Tweet]. @DrEricDing. https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1483181226815012867

    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2022, January 14). man who contracted potentially disease and then violated public health orders tries to cross borders by providing incorrect info on key docs = just fine is not something I foresaw from this corner... Once consistency is thrown out as a standard, rational debate is impossible... [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1481929150042619908

  10. Jan 2022
    1. Patone, M., Mei, X. W., Handunnetthi, L., Dixon, S., Zaccardi, F., Shankar-Hari, M., Watkinson, P., Khunti, K., Harnden, A., Coupland, C. A., Channon, K. M., Mills, N. L., Sheikh, A., & Hippisley-Cox, J. (2021). Risk of myocarditis following sequential COVID-19 vaccinations by age and sex (p. 2021.12.23.21268276). medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276

  11. Dec 2021
  12. Nov 2021
    1. Dr Nisreen Alwan 🌻. (2021, October 30). Mass infection of kids with a virus less than 2 years old is not ethical, not moral, not scientifically evidenced, not socially just & medically risky. There’s no good argument for this. And no, boosting population immunity to protect the adults is not a valid argument. #Childism [Tweet]. @Dr2NisreenAlwan. https://twitter.com/Dr2NisreenAlwan/status/1454498829403922440

  13. Oct 2021
  14. Sep 2021
    1. The press is full of reports that President Biden screwed up the pullout from Afghanistan. But none of the people saying he did it wrong say what he should have done instead.

      I've noticed this phenomenon as well. When criticizing public policy, writers should be required to write down their alternate plans and then go at least one or two levels deep as to the knock on effects that their decisions are likely to have.

      It's easy to criticize, but it's much harder to do the actual work and thinking to actually do something else.

  15. Aug 2021
    1. (2) Dr Nicole E Basta on Twitter: “There is SO MUCH misunderstanding about what a #vaccine #mandate IS & what a vaccine mandate DOES. No one is calling for anyone to be banned. No one is calling for anyone to be forcibly vaccinated. Please, gather 'round and listen up, so you know what we’re talking about... 1/n” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved August 23, 2021, from https://twitter.com/IDEpiPhD/status/1428410251884302336?s=20

  16. Jul 2021
  17. Jun 2021
  18. May 2021
    1. Reducing pain at the time of vaccination: WHO Position Paper – September 2015. Weekly epidemiological record. 2015;90(39):505–16 (www.who.int /immunization/policy/position_papers /reducing_pain_vaccination/en/)

    1. Robert Colvile. (2021, February 16). The vaccine passports debate is a perfect illustration of my new working theory: That the most important part of modern government, and its most important limitation, is database management. Please stick with me on this—It’s much more interesting than it sounds. (1/?) [Tweet]. @rcolvile. https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1361673425140543490

    1. ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘the SciBeh initiative is about bringing knowledge to policy makers and the general public, but I have to say this advert I just came across worries me: Where are the preceding data integrity and data analysis classes? Https://t.co/5LwkC1SVyF’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 18 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1362344945697308674

  19. Apr 2021
    1. Graham, M. S., Sudre, C. H., May, A., Antonelli, M., Murray, B., Varsavsky, T., Kläser, K., Canas, L. S., Molteni, E., Modat, M., Drew, D. A., Nguyen, L. H., Polidori, L., Selvachandran, S., Hu, C., Capdevila, J., Koshy, C., Ash, A., Wise, E., … Ourselin, S. (2021). Changes in symptomatology, reinfection, and transmissibility associated with the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: An ecological study. The Lancet Public Health, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00055-4

  20. Mar 2021
  21. Feb 2021
  22. Jan 2021
  23. Dec 2020
    1. The official definition of a “close contact” — 15 minutes, within six feet — isn’t foolproof.

      The takeaway: The official definition of a "close contact" for COVID-19 is not foolproof.

      The claim: The official definition of a "close contact" - 15 minutes, within six feet - isn't foolproof.

      The evidence: In Korea, a person sitting in a restaurant 6.5 meters (>20ft) away from the COVID index case for five minutes was infected, most likely because airflow from the air conditioner carried droplets with COVID-19 from the infected person to the person who became infected (1). How common transmission across large distances occurs is still debated (2). As several indoor outbreaks were attributed to airborne transmission, precautions to prevent airborne COVID transmission are needed (3). Examples include better air filtration/UV to kill virus in the system, increased air flow from outside, avoidance of recirculating interior air, and avoiding overcrowding in interior spaces.

      Sources:

      1) https://jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e415

      2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093420302858?via%3Dihub

      3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454469/pdf/ciaa939.pdf

  24. Nov 2020
    1. The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use.

      The takeaway: While minimal protection occurs when a mask is worn in a place where many others are not wearing a mask, community masking is associated with a reduction in COVID cases.

      The claim: In a community with modest infection rates, some social distancing, and most people not wearing masks, wearing a surgical mask did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate by more than 50%.

      The evidence: This study showed that wearing a mask in a community where most people did not wear a mask, did not reduce the risk of getting infected by 50%. Fewer COVID infections were reported in the mask group than in the unmasked group. This study agrees with a meta analysis which showed that masks resulted in a decrease in infections but did not prevent all infections (1) According to the CDC, seven studies have shown community level benefit when masking recommendations were made (2).

      When most in the community are not wearing masks, social distancing, and washing hands, wearing a mask alone provides minimal protection to the mask wearer. Community wide masking is associated with a reduction in COVID cases (2).

      Sources:

      1) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29140516/

      2) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

    1. Anxiety From Reactions to Covid-19 Will Destroy At Least Seven Times More Years of Life Than Can Be Saved by Lockdowns

      Take away: Though the number of COVID deaths prevented and the exact number of years lost due directly to decreases in mental health from lockdowns is at best a rough estimate, several facts are known. Lockdowns decrease mental health, and a decrease in mental health shortens lives too.

      The claim: Anxiety from reactions to COVID-19 will destroy at least seven times more years of life than can be saved by lockdowns.

      The evidence: This article references many studies detailing the anxiety surrounding COVID-19 (1-4). These studies indicate that many people have increased stress due to COVID. Nature Public Health Emergency Collection reports that the mental health cost of widespread lockdowns may negate the lives saved by this policy (5). This article lists many articles which describe the effect of stay-at-home orders on mental health. Additionally, the effect of poor mental health on physical outcomes is well-defined. Poor mental health shortens lives. Other factors with COVID such as negative media coverage and dealing with job loss and death are also described as negatively affecting mental health. It is unclear how much of the negative mental health outcomes is directly related to lockdowns and what is contributed to the disease, job loss, future uncertainty, and continuous media coverage.

      Several supporting facts used in this article are now outdated or could use clarification. Many assumptions are detailed in this article to estimate the number of years lost due to mental harm caused by lockdowns. One example is the authors used a survey of 1,266 patients to estimate the number of people in the United States who have suffered mental harm from lockdowns. These estimates are challenging to conclusively verify. The authors did choose the conservative estimate for each of their numbers. One example of an outdated number is the predicted number of deaths was 114,228 by August 4th. The actual number of deaths per Johns Hopkins was 157,500 (6).

      Based on the facts, anxiety and mental disorders can be deadly. Lockdowns result in an increase in poor mental health. The exact number of years lost due to poor mental health directly resulting from lockdowns is less clear. Poor mental health may also result from constant media coverage, loss of loved ones and fear of the future.

      The sources:

      1) https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/new-poll-covid-19-impacting-mental-well-being-americans-feeling-anxious-especially-for-loved-ones-older-adults-are-less-anxious

      2) https://www.kff.org/health-reform/report/kff-health-tracking-poll-early-april-2020/

      3) https://www.bsgco.com/post/coronavirus-and-americans-mental-health-insights-from-bsg-s-pulse-of-america-poll

      4) https://www.kff.org/report-section/kff-health-tracking-poll-late-april-2020-economic-and-mental-health-impacts-of-coronavirus/

      5) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431738/#

      6) https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map

  25. Oct 2020
  26. Sep 2020
    1. ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: “having spent a few days looking at ‘debate’ about COVID policy on lay twitter (not the conspiracy stuff, just the ‘we should all be Sweden’ discussions), the single most jarring (and worrying) thing I noticed is that posters seem completely undeterred by self contradiction 1/3” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1308340430170456064

  27. Aug 2020
    1. Lozano, R., Fullman, N., Mumford, J. E., Knight, M., Barthelemy, C. M., Abbafati, C., Abbastabar, H., Abd-Allah, F., Abdollahi, M., Abedi, A., Abolhassani, H., Abosetugn, A. E., Abreu, L. G., Abrigo, M. R. M., Haimed, A. K. A., Abushouk, A. I., Adabi, M., Adebayo, O. M., Adekanmbi, V., … Murray, C. J. L. (2020). Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30750-9

    1. Though important, social distancing could be reduced to one metre instead of 2m

      Take away: As with most things in nature, there are always exceptions – transmission occurring at greater distances than 3 ft and evidence of aerosolization have been reported.

      Discussion: In scientific terms, this virus is still very new so the data supporting an optimal physical distance to prevent transmission remains scarce. In the absence of data, public health agencies have used what they understand about this virus and similar viruses to infer a “best” answer. Public health agencies try to simplify the recommendation to a single answer, but the reality is much more complex.

      According to reports the WHO bases their recommendation for 1 meter (~3 ft) distancing off of an understanding that SARS-CoV-2 behaves like similar respiratory viruses that are primarily transmitted via larger droplets (as opposed to smaller aerosols). Assuming most spread is via droplets, the WHO reportedly follows the results of a 1934 study indicating most respiratory droplets fall to the ground within 3 feet.

      However, as with most things in nature, there are always exceptions – transmission occurring at greater distances than 3 ft and evidence of aerosolization have been reported.

      The evidence basis for the CDCs guidance for 6 feet of separation is less clear, but probably reflects lower risk tolerance, or greater weight to evidence of aerosolization or wider droplet spread.

      Even with further study, there may never be a clear answer for optimal physical distancing. This is because, (1) the area of high risk for transmission is probably dependent on the specific conditions of the interaction (e.g. loud talking, windy environment), and (2) the “optimal” distance is based on risk tolerance. There is no single distance between individuals where risk of transmission drops off precipitously to zero.

      All evidence indicates that greater distances are safer but, for example, consider how restrictive a physical distancing recommendation of >50 ft would be. In the end, because we can’t control how far others stand away from us, we ask governments to consider these tradeoffs and deliver a “best” answer to guide their citizenry.