If you are going to read anything today let it be this short editorial
This is just what we need from ⁦⁩. Instead of taking extreme pandemic positions with absolute certainty, we need to embrace uncertainty, listen to all sides of the argument and balance the risks. There are so many known unknowns.
I’ve never seen this before in a footnote. ‘Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that all three authors have been wrong about covid-19.’ They then outline what they got wrong. How refreshing.
“The more certain someone is about covid-19, the less you should trust them”. Couldn’t agree more. Goes for everything from the disease to the data to the policy responses to the treatments. Great editorial from et al
excellent article on acknowledging uncertainty abut Covid from , and Michael Blastland. The Footnote nicely demonstrates their own epistemic humility
Spot on . "Acknowledging uncertainty a little more might improve...atmosphere of the debate and the science, but also public trust. If we publicly bet the reputational ranch on one answer, how open minded can we be when the evidence changes?"
Outstanding from Covid-19’s known unknowns
The “known unknowns” of COVID 19 The notion of “known unknowns” is usually attributed to Donald Rumsfeld, but was introduced 101 years ago by the pioneering clinical epidemiologist James Mackenzie
During this pandemic, commentators on every side are duelling certitudes in full view of a public desperate for simple answers—even when, unfortunately, these may not exist. , , and Michael Blastland on resecting uncertainty
Best. COI statement. Ever. from "Covid-19’s known unknowns" by George Davey Smith (), Michael Blastland, and Marcus Munafò () Short and to the point; very worth a quick read.
Beware the “‘armchair epidemiologist’ blessed with the astounding ability of star economists and physicists to assimilate and transcend within weeks what infectious disease specialists have learnt over decades”. 
This article gives me new hope for science communication "Acknowledging uncertainty might improve not only the atmosphere of the debate and the science, but also public trust" And no, they are not talking about fringe views on HCQ, masks, or zero COVID
Very good, except for the unnecessary snipe at physicists. Physicists are familiar with data analysis and modeling, regardless of the topic. This doesn't make them pandemic experts, but it means you won't scare them by yelling "differential equations".
“Acknowledging uncertainty a little more might improve not only the atmosphere of the debate and the science, but also public trust. If we publicly bet the reputational ranch on one answer, how open minded can we be when the evidence changes?”
Covid-19’s known unknowns | The BMJ very nice piece by ⁦⁩ and others.
Epistemic Humility:, COVID-19 Edition, via I would like to applaud , Michael Blastland, and for writing this important article, and for setting an example with their excellent footnote.
Thats got to be one of the best footnotes I've ever read 👏👏
👇Important piece from ⁦⁩ ⁦⁩ ⁦
#PandemicIsOverUK "the more certain someone is about Covid-19, the less you should trust them" Amen
In praise of uncertainty and doubt ... Covid-19’s known unknowns
Covid-19’s known unknowns "The more certain someone is about covid-19, the less you should trust them."
Excellent morning read. Respect and Acknowledge Uncertainty to gain Trust- is the key message.
Dealing with pandemics [or lots of public health problems] is an inherently multidisciplinary task, and expertise in one area does not confer expertise in another.
Absolutely brilliant editorial. Feels like a breath of fresh air. Please read this ⁦⁩ etc before you give another interview. Science can only survive this crisis if we remain humble and honest about what we know.
A brilliantly honest conflict of interest. We need more like this. "Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that all three authors have been wrong about covid-19."
We make a similar point here...
Covid-19’s known unknowns. "Acknowledging uncertainty a little more might improve not only the atmosphere of the debate and the science, but also public trust."
"overconfidence about our understanding of covid-19 comes in various guises. One is when the #evidence changes little but conclusions based on it harden, as with the value of facemasks in the early stages of the pandemic. #covid19 #coronavirus
"The more certain someone is about covid-19, the less you should trust them". Yep. I've walked away from the public square during covid. The shouting and silliness is irrelevant. You can judge a person by what they are shipping, materially, to help.
Certainty is dangerous when it comes to medicine and public health. #COVID19 is a perfect example of spurious precision, false claims based on authority, and scientific gas lighting. Be warned, be aware, and be prepared to embrace uncertainty
"The more certain someone is about covid-19, the less you should trust them" Important piece on the need to acknowledge uncertainties by M Blastland and
What is it that has led so many scientists thoroughly familiar with uncertainty to be so certain about the huge uncertainties of Covid-19? Emotion? Fear? The lure of the bright media lights? Hubris?
“the astounding ability of star economists and physicists to fully assimilate and transcend within weeks what infectious disease specialists have learnt over decades. The seriousness with which they are received in some circles is likely to be damaging.”
Covid-19’s known unknowns
“we are thinking of the many rational people with scientific credentials making assertive public pronouncements on covid-19 who seem to suggest there can be no legitimate grounds for disagreeing with them”> Covid-19’s known unknowns | The BMJ
Covid-19’s known unknowns: The more certain someone is about #covid19, the less you should trust them, spot-on editorial in ⁦
Nice commentary on uncertainty: "The more certain someone is about covid-19, the less you should trust them” h/t: "When deciding whom to listen to in the covid-19 era, we should respect those who respect uncertainty"
Covid-19’s known unknowns: "When deciding whom to listen to in the covid-19 era, we should respect those who respect uncertainty, and listen in particular to those who acknowledge conflicting evidence on even their most strongly held views."
Covid-19’s known unknowns | The BMJ
This whole piece is a breath of fresh air, but the footnote is :chef's kiss
“To allege that anyone who ... exposes science to attack from these quarters, is to concede vital scientific ground by implying that only certainty will do. Generally, and particularly in the context of covid-19, certitude is the obverse of knowledge.”
Covid-19’s known unknowns via et al
Agree - in a similar vein, did you see this?
From I particularly liked "Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that all three authors have been wrong about covid-19." at the end.