Because I can’t concentrate on literally anything else but COVID, I wrote about something that’s been bothering me for two weeks: the other epidemic sweeping the nation.
In short, there are real disagreements among experts and real uncertainties about the pandemic. I'm not saying all randos on the internet are wrong. But most of them are. For more on the phenomenon of armchair epidemiology, I wrote about it here
"One reason back-of-the-envelope hot takes are thriving is that the science of ongoing epidemics is inherently uncertain." Beware the armchair epidemiologists part deux
"Just because you can analyze data doesn’t mean you should" SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE TECH BROS IN THE BACK 👏👏👏👏
So, after my article on the epidemic of armchair epidemiology, I really didn’t want to spend more time discussing another amateur’s post, but I think there’s a useful lesson here about what qualifies as science. *rolls up sleeves* THREAD
Here's a great article on the "epidemic of armchair epidemiology" that this pandemic has generated: My STS self is enjoying its many excellent nuggets of wisdom on the problems with expertise in the age of (mis)information.
Viral Medium posts from data “experts” are not helping. Please, Let’s Stop the Epidemic of Armchair Epidemiology via
Public health depends on communicating clear, accurate information. This is especially true during a pandemic. Part of addressing #COVID19 is to #letsciencespeak. v
On Covid-19 and epistemic trespassing (i.e., mistakenly thinking your expertise extends far out of your circle of competence). Remember, the real experts know things not dreamt of in your personal universe.