3 ms·

I totally agree that many people aren't following the news closely and they'll probably eventually get vaccinated. However, I don't see what you're criticizing

by rovolo 5y ago

I totally agree that many people aren't following the news closely and they'll probably eventually get vaccinated. However, I don't see what you're criticizing in the Nature article. They're pretty clearly distinguishing between herd immunity from infection vs from vaccination: > In early October, a libertarian think tank and a small group of scientists released a document called the Great Barrington Declaration. In it, they call for a return to normal life for people at lower risk of severe COVID-19, to allow SARS-CoV-2 to spread to a sufficient level to give herd immunity. > Typically, herd immunity is discussed as a desirable result of wide-scale vaccination programmes. > Many researchers say pursuing herd immunity is a bad idea. “Attempting to reach herd immunity via targeted infections is simply ludicrous,” Andersen says. “In the US, probably one to two million people would die.”

godelski 5y ago
When reading the article I see the author and the doctor using herd immunity in different ways. I think if you are already informed on the subject that you won't notice the different but if you aren't you'll pick up on it. That distinction is key when it is the job of every scientist to make sure that the public version of their work is approachable (I saw this as a researcher myself. I do believe scientific communication is part of my own job). So I'll break down what I see. The title is "The false promise of herd immunity for COVID-19", which is in contradiction of what we're seeing today. Today we're aiming for herd immunity and actively promising it. But of course, the subtitle adds nuance. This is because at that time we were only talking about herd immunity in the context of Sweden and Trump's "let it run its course". So this conflates herd immunity with herd immunity through natural infection. > The writers of the declaration received an audience in the White House, and sparked a counter memorandum from another group of scientists in The Lancet, which called the herd-immunity approach a “dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence” While you and I know that they mean "we should quarantine people and not let the infection run its course" this claim is a bit confusing. The article ironically brings up what I'm saying > “I’m a bit puzzled that it’s now used to mean how many people need to get infected before this thing stops,” says Marcel Salathé Here's two adjacent sentences that contradict. > Will herd immunity work? (subsection totle) > Many researchers say pursuing herd immunity is a bad idea. The next sentence is > “Attempting to reach herd immunity via targeted infections is simply ludicrous,” Andersen says. The reason to push on the Nature article is because Nature, above all else, should be much clearer. They write these articles as scientific communicators and have the expertise. I think reading as a scientist you'll miss those "herd immunity is dangerous" moments and fill in the gap in your head because of your prior knowledge, but others don't and we saw that become widespread (as noted in my quote). It's subtle, but the distinctions matter. And we should have a high bar for more prestigious sources like Nature. There are other articles from less (scientifically) prestigious sources which were even more convoluted (iirc, WaPo, WSJ, and CNN made similar mistakes).

by rovolo 5y ago

godelski 5y ago

When reading the article I see the author and the doctor using herd immunity in different ways. I think if you are already informed on the subject that you won't notice the different but if you aren't you'll pick up on it. That distinction is key when it is the job of every scientist to make sure that the public version of their work is approachable (I saw this as a researcher myself. I do believe scientific communication is part of my own job). So I'll break down what I see. The title is "The false promise of herd immunity for COVID-19", which is in contradiction of what we're seeing today. Today we're aiming for herd immunity and actively promising it. But of course, the subtitle adds nuance. This is because at that time we were only talking about herd immunity in the context of Sweden and Trump's "let it run its course". So this conflates herd immunity with herd immunity through natural infection. > The writers of the declaration received an audience in the White House, and sparked a counter memorandum from another group of scientists in The Lancet, which called the herd-immunity approach a “dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence” While you and I know that they mean "we should quarantine people and not let the infection run its course" this claim is a bit confusing. The article ironically brings up what I'm saying > “I’m a bit puzzled that it’s now used to mean how many people need to get infected before this thing stops,” says Marcel Salathé Here's two adjacent sentences that contradict. > Will herd immunity work? (subsection totle) > Many researchers say pursuing herd immunity is a bad idea. The next sentence is > “Attempting to reach herd immunity via targeted infections is simply ludicrous,” Andersen says. The reason to push on the Nature article is because Nature, above all else, should be much clearer. They write these articles as scientific communicators and have the expertise. I think reading as a scientist you'll miss those "herd immunity is dangerous" moments and fill in the gap in your head because of your prior knowledge, but others don't and we saw that become widespread (as noted in my quote). It's subtle, but the distinctions matter. And we should have a high bar for more prestigious sources like Nature. There are other articles from less (scientifically) prestigious sources which were even more convoluted (iirc, WaPo, WSJ, and CNN made similar mistakes).