10.1038/s41562-020-00990-w

Social and behavioural scientists have attempted to speak to the COVID-19 crisis. But is behavioural research on COVID-19 suitable for making policy decisions? We offer a taxonomy that lets our science advance in ‘evidence readiness levels’ to be suitable for policy. We caution practitioners to take extreme care translating our findings to applications.

Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being used as a tool to support the fight against the viral pandemic that has affected the entire world since the beginning of 2020. The press and the scientific community are echoing the high hopes that data science and AI can be used to confront the coronavirus (D. Yakobovitch, How to fight the Coronavirus with AI and Data Science, Medium, 15 February 2020) and "fill in the blanks" still left by science (G. Ratnam, Can AI Fill in the Blanks About Coronavirus? Think So Experts, Government Technology, 17 March 2020).

AI and control of Covid-19 coronavirus

Selina Rodgers, a health care assistant at St Luke's Hospice in Devon said: "We see a lot of death in what we do, but during this last six to seven months there's been more than ever.

Coronavirus excess fatalities: How pandemic is impacting the lives and deaths of those who don't have COVID

BAME citizens (a relevant characteristic under the Act). So where is the discussion of this issue with regards to policy measures in the public debate? any lawyers out there who can leap in? https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149… 2/2

more musings on 'where is the law in shaping COVID response?': under 2010 UK equalities act, any public policy must be scrutinised for direct and indirect (inadvertent) discriminatory impact. a central thing we've learned about C-19 is its disproportionate impact on .. 1/2

Equality Act 2010

Cambridge University study also suggests older people less likely to believe coronavirus misinformation

Poor numerical literacy linked to greater susceptibility to Covid-19 fake news

Background In the face of the global pandemic of coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19), people’s adherence to precautionary behavioral measures (e.g. social distancing) largely influences the effectiveness of those measures in containing the spread of the coronavirus. The present study aims at testing the applicability of the health belief model (HBM) and generalised social beliefs (i.e. social axioms) to explore strategies for promoting adherence to COVID‐19 precautionary measures. Methods We conducted a telephone survey with a two‐step stratified random sampling method and obtained a probability sample of 616 adults in Macao, China (18–87 years old; 60.9% women) in April 2020. Results Our participants showed stronger adherence to some COVID‐19 precautionary measures (e.g. face mask wearing; 96.4%) but not others (e.g. social distancing; 42.3%). Their adherence to those measures was found to be significantly associated with four HBM factors and two social axioms, after controlling for gender, age, and years of education. Conclusions The HBM and the generalised social beliefs of social cynicism and reward for application can be applied to understanding adherence to precautionary measures against COVID‐19. Strategies based on beliefs were proposed to facilitate the promotion of precautionary measures.

10.1111/aphw.12230

Adherence to COVID‐19 Precautionary Measures: Applying the Health Belief Model and Generalised Social Beliefs to a Probability Community Sample

As of May 13, 2020, the number of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (novel corona virus, COVID-19) infections has risen to 4 300 000 worldwide, with over 1 300 000 confirmed cases in the United States. Various prediction models of spread indicate more hospitalization, increased ventilator use, and the shifting of medical resources to most efficiently serve the patient’s needs. Additionally, mitigation strategies such as monitoring for symptoms, social distancing, safer at home, and the wearing of masks caused our institution to implement significant operational changes to our usual practice. This included screening patients and staff for symptoms, rescheduling routine medical visits, postponing procedures, converting face-to-face visits to telephone or video visits, and changing visitor visit policies. In this article, we describe the various ways we deployed empathic communication messaging and resources across the institution during the COVID-19 pandemic.

10.1177/2374373520962602

The Use of Empathic Communication During the COVID-19 Outbreak

10.3390/ijerph17186655

In this commentary, we discuss the physiological effects of wearing masks for prolonged periods of time, including special considerations, such as mask wearing among those who engage in exercise training, and concerns for individuals with pre-existing chronic diseases. In healthy populations, wearing a mask does not appear to cause any harmful physiological alterations, and the potentially life-saving benefits of wearing face masks seem to outweigh the documented discomforts (e.g. headaches). However, there continues to be controversy over mask wearing in the United States, even though wearing a mask appears to have only minor physiological drawbacks. While there are minimal physiological impacts on wearing a mask, theoretical evidence suggests that there may be consequential psychological impacts of mask wearing on the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. These psychological impacts may contribute to the controversy associated with wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. After we discuss the physiological impacts of mask wearing, we will discuss psychological effects associated with wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Physiological and Psychological Impact of Face Mask Usage during the COVID-19 Pandemic

0144-333X

Purpose Focussing on the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong, when the infection rate was relatively low, this paper aims to explore the role of social capital in fighting the novel coronavirus. Design/methodology/approach This is a discussion paper that draws evidence from current scholarly literature and other commentaries, government policies and the personal observation of the author. The main conceptual tool used in the study is Szreter and Woolcock (2004) three-dimensional framework of social capital. Findings This paper suggests that whilst the experience of fighting SARS as early as 2003 equipped Hong Kong people with adequate knowledge of virus prevention, efforts to control COVID-19 also benefited from social capital developed during the prolonged social protest since 2019. People belonging to the pro-democracy camp took the initiative to deliver facemasks and advocate hygiene measures in Hong Kong, demonstrating strong community mobilisation. This led to the emergence of bonding and bridging social capital (but not linking social capital) in local society, based substantially on similarity in political orientation. Originality/value The use of Szreter and Woolcock (2004) three-dimensional framework for examining social capital provides a new perspective on the contribution of social network analysis to coronavirus protective measures.

Fighting COVID-19: social capital and community mobilisation in Hong Kong

IntroductionNon-pharmaceutical measures to facilitate a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a disease caused by novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, are urgently needed. Using the World Health Organization (WHO) health emergency and disaster risk management (health-EDRM) framework, behavioural measures for droplet-borne communicable diseases and their enabling and limiting factors at various implementation levels were evaluated.Sources of dataKeyword search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Medline, Science Direct, WHO and CDC online publication databases. Using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine review criteria, 10 bottom-up, non-pharmaceutical prevention measures from 104 English-language articles, which published between January 2000 and May 2020, were identified and examined.Areas of agreementEvidence-guided behavioural measures against transmission of COVID-19 in global at-risk communities were identified, including regular handwashing, wearing face masks and avoiding crowds and gatherings.Areas of concernStrong evidence-based systematic behavioural studies for COVID-19 prevention are lacking.Growing pointsVery limited research publications are available for non-pharmaceutical measures to facilitate pandemic response.Areas timely for researchResearch with strong implementation feasibility that targets resource-poor settings with low baseline health-EDRM capacity is urgently needed.

10.1093/bmb/ldaa030

Narrative review of non-pharmaceutical behavioural measures for the prevention of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) based on the Health-EDRM framework

BackgroundIn East Asia, face masks are commonly worn to reduce viral spread. In Euope and North America, however, their use has been stigmatised for a long time, although this view has radically changed during the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Notwithstanding this, it is still unclear whether face masks worn by COVID-19 carriers may indeed prevent viral transmission and environmental contamination. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical face masks in filtering SARS-CoV-2. MethodsFour male patients with COVID-19 were recruited for the study. Two patients wore a surgical mask for 5 h, while two others did not. The spread of the virus in the environment was evaluated through the approved Allplex 2019-nCoV assay.ResultsIn the room with the two patients without surgical masks, the swab performed on the headboard and sides of the beds was positive for SARS-CoV-2 contamination. In the other room, where two patients were wearing surgical masks, all of the swabs obtained after 5 h tested negative.ConclusionsThe results of the current study add to the growing body of literature supporting the use of face masks as a measure to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by retaining potentially contagious droplets that can infect other people and/or contaminate surfaces. Based on the current evidence, face masks should therefore be considered a useful and low-cost device in addition to social distancing and hand hygiene during the postlockdown phase.

10.1093/trstmh/traa085

Should face masks be worn to contain the spread of COVID-19 in the postlockdown phase?

With lockdown restrictions over coronavirus disease 2019 being relaxed, airlines are returning to the skies. Published evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2 transmission on aircraft is limited, but in-flight transmission of respiratory infections such as tuberculosis, influenza and SARS has been well described. Risk factors include proximity to index patients and sitting in aisle seats. Personal protection on aircraft could be enhanced by always wearing a well-fitting face mask and face shield or sunglasses, wiping surfaces and hands with alcohol-based sanitizers, not touching the face, not queuing for washrooms, changing seats if nearby passengers are coughing and choosing a window rather than an aisle seat.

10.1093/trstmh/traa106

SARS-CoV-2: how safe is it to fly and what can be done to enhance protection?

10.1016/j.paid.2020.110417

Recent popular press authors have proposed that men are less likely to wear face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate this notion in the current article by analyzing three extant datasets. We also assess the mediating effect of eight different face mask perceptions in the relation between gender and face mask wearing via the Face Mask Perceptions Scale. Across the three datasets, the sample-size weighted meta-analytic correlation between gender and face mask wearing was not statistically significant, and no face mask perception was a consistent mediator of this effect. Gender did have significant relations with two face mask perceptions, however. Men were more likely to perceive face masks as infringing on their independence, whereas women were more likely to perceive face masks as uncomfortable. Therefore, although gender does not relate to whether a person wears a face mask, it does relate to face mask perceptions. We offer several suggestions for research and practice from these results, such as the positioning of face mask wearing alongside passive health behaviors, the broader study of face mask perceptions' outcomes beyond face mask wearing, as well as the creation of interventions to target differing face mask perceptions across genders.

Gender, face mask perceptions, and face mask wearing: Are men being dangerous during the COVID-19 pandemic?

10.1200/JCO.2020.38.29_suppl.174

Background: Oncology patients have had to adapt to minimize the risks of contracting COVID-19. We assessed patient knowledge of COVID, and the impact of the pandemic on their behaviours, concerns and healthcare experience, to identify any further education/quality improvement needs. Methods: Following ethical approval, a 16 page survey was distributed to 120 oncology patients attending the day unit of a tertiary Irish cancer center for systemic anti-cancer therapy (May/June 2020). The Irish COVID rate during this period was 33.8 new cases/day (pop. 4.9 million). Results: 101 responses were received. Cancer types included breast (19%), gastrointestinal (29%), head and neck (11%), and lung (13%). 31% had been tested for COVID; just 1 patient was positive. 100% were aware of advice to “cocoon” and reported good understanding of this. 75% reported complete compliance, but of those, 73% were not social-distancing within their homes, 22% received visitors, and 36% continued to shop in-store; of these, 42% shopped as/more often than pre-COVID. Of the 51 patients regularly shopping, many were not using risk-reduction strategies e.g. social distancing (22%), mask-wearing (20%), using “priority shopping’ hours (31%), avoiding public transport (26%). 94% felt confident/very confident in recognizing COVID symptoms, but 66% did not recognize two or more key symptoms from a list of 10, most frequently aches/pains (58%), fatigue (55%), altered smell/taste (33%) and dyspnea (14%). The number recognized did not correlate with confidence (p = 0.9) or desire for more information about COVID (p = 0.9). 40% did not feel they were at higher risk of contracting COVID, while 15% thought they were no more likely to be very sick than an average person if infected. Many did not know that chemotherapy, steroids, radiation, and immunotherapy can impact morbidity/mortality in COVID (31%, 70%, 44% and 49% respectively). 46% were somewhat/very fearful of COVID, but this did not strongly predict for either protective (e.g. mask-wearing: OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.3-4.8 p = 0.9), or risk behaviors (e.g. continuing to shop frequently: OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.1-1.4 p = 0.2). 66% would like more cancer specific information, particularly about prevention (45%) and symptoms (33%), with a preference for written information (74%). Conclusions: Despite self-reported confidence in knowledge, patient’s self-assessments of their risk category and the preventative strategies they should use may be inaccurate. Increased education about risk, cocooning and symptom recognition is necessary.

Patient self-reported awareness of COVID: Overconfidence in knowledge, underestimation of risk.

While health authorities sounded early warnings concerning COVID-19 [1The LancetCOVID-19: too little, too late?.Lancet. 2020; 395: 755https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30522-5Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar], the United States (US) government practised “pandemic politics” and escalated menacing assaults on science, including repeated denials of epidemic principles of mitigation and containment. The first on December 31, 2019 was that the virus would not enter the US. A second on January 20, 2020 following introduction of the first US case from Wuhan, China was that “the virus would not spread.” A third on February 26 was that the 15 cases would “go away” when temperatures climbed [2Hennekens C.H. George S. Adirim T.A. Johnson H. Maki D.G. The emerging pandemic of coronavirus and the urgent need for public health leadership.Am J Med. 2020; 133: 648-650https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.03.001Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar]. A fourth is continued and repeated denials of clear benefits of masking [3Solano J.J. Maki D.G. Adirim T.A. Shih R.D. Hennekens C.H. Public health strategies contain and mitigate COVID-19: a tale of two democracies.Am J Med. 2020; ([published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 15]) (S0002-9343(20)30699-9)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.001Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (0) Google Scholar].

10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100581

The menacing assaults on science, FDA, CDC, and health of the US public

10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-03-01

Mixed-method research to endorse methodological pluralism within educational technology research – easier said than done?

Extended Editorial

(RETWEET) This may be the most incredible data visualization I've ever seen. It shows COVID-19 transforming from a blue-state scourge (spring 2020) to a red-state one (summer/fall 2020)—with the clear implication being that Trump led his cultists to death.

Research has many different purposes, so ordering journals on a single dimension is a mistake, even within a field or content area. Journals that produce research that may be super-important for people in sub-Saharan Africa may be of only marginal interest to people in the UK or Australia. A study that to basic researchers is fundamentally flawed due to a confound that prevent strong causal inference may be just what some policy-makers need who must act before waiting for a more perfect study. To avoid the academic cluster-fuck of the last few decades, we need to start acting like we believe this and support a more diverse universe of journals and other outlets.3 SciencePsychologyAcademiaJournalsOpen Access Journals

Conventional journal rankings — fight them!

Yes, Science Is Political

Scientists need to acknowledge that fact—and to act on it in these most dire of times

Signal detection theory, speed–accuracy trade-offs, and attentional allocation trade-offs all describe trade-offs between different components of performance in a detection task; however, these phenomena have generally been considered independently and their relationships are unclear. In this article, we expand the classical signal detection model in a way that allows us to incorporate speed, accuracy, and attention into a single unifying framework. Classical signal detection theory generally assumes fixed overlapping distributions of the perceived stimuli generated by desirable and undesirable objects. The variability of these distributions is typically assumed to be attributable either to the true variation among objects or perceptual error. Our new framework considers how investment in learning about the signal being emitted by encountered objects (sampling) might reduce one component of this variability, namely that generated by perceptual error. First, we identify the optimal sampling strategy, based on the payoff-maximizing time or attention a receiver should allocate to a given object. Next, we show how this optimal strategy can vary with parameters such as the ratio of desirable to undesirable objects and the initial perceptual error. Finally, we highlight the consequences of these optimal sampling strategies, using Batesian mimicry as a central example. The implications of the ability of receivers to reduce perceptual error by allocating more time or attention are potentially far reaching. For instance, snap decisions by predators will arise when predators do not gain from allocating more time to make better informed decisions, and under some conditions, this behavior will allow more imperfect mimicry to persist.

10.1093/beheco/art001

Optimal sampling and signal detection: unifying models of attention and speed–accuracy trade-offs

Prof Nigel Harvey warns against using the umbrella term for different reasons for non-compliance with Covid-19 restrictions.

Resistance to lockdown rules is not just ‘fatigue’

Haste to publish has been part of pandemic culture, but at what cost? Scientists should not act in isolation from the societies in which they live. Being the 'first' may be tremendously exciting, but have consequences that open a Pandora's box nigh impossible to close. End/

Others with more commercially minded aims have seized on the uncertainty as an opportunity... 7/

Our response was submitted within 5 days of publication. Others sent letters too. It took 5 months to publish. Damage done by national policies of separating mothers from infants, and the doubt placed in mothers' minds, are becoming clear. 6/

More papers have since supplanted this report. Breastfeeding has been consistently considered safe by the @WHO and milk can contain protective antibodies. But this case report was published in The Lancet. It has been cited over 70 times already. 5/

And the paper showed high Ct values, well over 30, suggesting from the outset that fragmentation was also the case for SARS-CoV-2 - part of human milk's evolutionary selected antiviral mechanisms. And tellingly, two of the four cited papers were non-peer reviewed preprints. 4/

This would have been unlikely - other coronaviruses, including MERS and SARS, are fragmented by the lactating breast's innate and adaptive immune mechanisms. The baby in the report had fed at the breast while symptomatic just before sampling making contamination highly likely. 3/

The original article was flawed in methodology and conclusions, while not overtly written as such, indicated to the global health community and policymakers that #covid19 could be transmitted through breastfeeding. 2/

I never saw a future that I'd be sad to see my article published in @TheLancet. But in many ways this feels too late. When the original paper came out in May, my coauthors and I were stunned. 1/

Researchers find Sars-CoV-2 survives longer at lower temperatures and lasts 10 days longer than influenza on some surfaces

Virus that causes Covid-19 can survive up to 28 days on surfaces, scientists find

The COVID-19 pandemic is the largest sudden crisis for Western democracies since the Second World War. Funded by 27.4 million DKK from the Carlsberg Foundation, the HOPE project examines the interrelationship between: the trajectory of the COVID-19 the decisions of governments and international organisations the decisions of media and social media landscapes citizens’ behavior and well-being

HOPE - How Democracies Cope with COVID19 A Data-Driven Approach

10.2105/AJPH.2020.305908

Although everyone has the potential to be misled by false information, online misinformation is not an equal opportunity aggressor. Some of us are more likely to believe misinformation than are others and serve as vectors by sharing it on social media. To effectively combat misinformation on social media, it is crucial to understand the underlying factors that lead certain people to believe and share false and misleading content online. A growing body of research has tackled this issue by investigating who is susceptible to online misinformation and under what circumstances. This literature can help shape future research and interventions to address health misinformation. We provide a brief overview of what we know about who is susceptible and what we still have to learn.

Who Is Susceptible to Online Health Misinformation?

The ‘think-tank’ behind the Great Barrington Declaration is part-funded by right-wing American billionaire Charles Koch, reports Nafeez Ahmed

Climate Science Denial NetworkBehind Great Barrington Declaration

A small number of scientists argue that the best way to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic is to lock down older and sicker people while letting those who are young and healthy get infected. These scientists claim widespread infection will protect society as a whole by building herd immunity.This “herd immunity” strategy is not part of a legitimate scientific debate. It has been rejected by key scientific leaders in the US, UK, Germany, and World Health Organization. Proponents of “herd immunity” haven’t tried to address even basic questions about the strategy, such as how many households would need to be locked down or how many people would still get sick from endemic COVID-19 once herd immunity was achieved.

The “herd immunity strategy” isn’t part of a scientific debate about COVID-19. It’s a well-funded political campaign.

Doctors, scientists, and public health leaders are increasingly stepping into the fray and getting political, writes Abraar Karan

Abraar Karan: Politics and public health in America—taking a stand for what is right

NY went into weekend w/good news & leaves it on same path. Manhattan back down to 0.4%. No counties above 5%. Testing excellent. It may be optimistic to believe these clusters are tamped down, but the efforts of the last 2 weeks may well have worked. #MaskUp #NewYorkStrong

COVID-19 has caused a cycling boom as people use bikes instead of public transport. Governments have responded by introducing cycling initiatives and improving infrastructure. Finland has spent $7.76 per person where Spain has spent $0.17.

Riding out the pandemic: How COVID-19 turned Europe into a cycle superpower

A new Scientific American piece suggests we need:A coordinated campaign of influencers supporting science and public health.An aggressive and transparent effort by social media companies working in cooperation with governments to remove markedly false information regarding COVID-19.Beyond debunking and removal of false information: a robust public messaging campaign that goes further than the government’s traditional one-way message. (ie social media are popular precisely because they are interactive)Detect, understand and expose COVID-19-related misinformation through data science and behavioral analytics.Match public health promises with the capabilities of a government that can deliver

Review on combatting the COVID misinformation flood

This “infodemic” has to stop

COVID Misinformation Is Killing People

US foreign policy on COVID-19 has failed. COVID-19 has shown the need to reframe global health in terms of solidarity, putting resources behind collective mobilisation of expertise from high-income countries and LMICs and building capacity to save lives worldwide. In 2019, the USA spent about US$8·9 billion, or 0·19% of the US federal budget, on pandemic-related global health programmes.9Kavanagh MM Thirumurthy H Katz R et al.Ending pandemics: US foreign policy to mitigate today's major killers, tomorrow's outbreaks, and the health impacts of climate change.J Int Aff. 2019; 73: 49Google Scholar That amount is clearly insufficient. Doubling pandemics spending, channelling it through high-impact multilateral and bilateral channels, and building a political strategy to increase the power of global health governance could be a game changer. The key first step, however, will be embracing a foreign policy rooted in solidarity and the shared self-interest laid bare under COVID-19.

10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30211-5

US elections and a foreign policy for pandemics

The ‘Great Barrington declaration’ makes claims about herd immunity that its signatories have failed to back up

The anti-lockdown scientists’ cause would be more persuasive if it weren’t so half-baked

Yet Sweden adopted strikingly different policies from those of other European countries, out of a desire to avoid disrupting daily life—and perhaps the hope that, by paying an immediate price in illness, the country could achieve “herd immunity” and put the pandemic behind it. Swedish authorities actively discouraged people from wearing face masks, which they said would spread panic, are often worn the wrong way, and can provide a false sense of safety. Some doctors who insisted on wearing a mask at work have been reprimanded or even fired. Until last month, Sweden’s official policy stated people without obvious symptoms are very unlikely to spread the virus. So instead of being quarantined or asked to stay home, family members, colleagues, and classmates of confirmed cases had to attend school and show up for work, unless they had symptoms themselves. Testing in Sweden still lags behind many other countries, and in many districts infected people are expected to notify their own contacts—in contrast to, say, Germany and Norway, where small armies of contact tracers help track down people who may have been exposed.

‘It’s been so, so surreal.’ Critics of Sweden’s lax pandemic policies face fierce backlash

scibeh's goals. So, all comments and thoughts welcome- both here and on the reddits, both on argument itself and the meta-science issues raised. It would be good to continue moving forward debate on the role of behavioural scientists in this crisis.

finally, in the interest of full disclosure: @profnfenton is a much valued collaborator of mine (Ulrike Hahn writing here), adding extra complexity to public exchange of argument. But the piece was put out on Twitter presumably to prompt public debate, and such debate is one of

AND- rises have (indirect) public health implications if contact tracing and testing reaches breaking point (taking away ability for targeted stopping of transmission)

but I feel I can evaluate argument itself. My concern: Even if 1 & 2 were true, unless the proportion of asymptomatic cases and FPs are rising disproportionally, a rise must mean *other cases* are also going up and *these* will cause illness, death and further spread

1 and 2, from my own reading of the literature are wrong, but equally outside my own core competence

To me, it makes multiple statements outside the core expertise of the behavioural scientist: 1. 'almost all of those will not show any symptoms of a C-19 illness' 2. 'they will not 'spread the virus' 3. implication that rise in numbers doesn't suggest increasing population risk

– as can be seen from the university student ‘cases’ – are either asymptomatic or false positives., i.e. they do not – and will not – show any symptoms of a ‘COVID-19 illness’. Nor will they ‘spread the virus’ to others." ('expertise?')

it has the central argument: "the massive increase in ‘new cases’ is almost completely explained by factors that have nothing to do with an increasing population health risk. New cases are simply the count of those who get a positive test result. But almost all of those

So, the tweet itself: it highlights a piece published with the authors' academic affiliations on a website started by a divisive, U.K. commentator - Toby Young (for those outside the UK, wikipedia or simply Google will let you form your own opinion), ('too political'?)

which is even more difficult to receive when public. None of these issues are resolved, and all merit further debate. So one motivation in highlighting (and critiquing) this tweet is not just to engage and present a particular view, but also to reinvigorate those debates:

fashion that promotes good science, and good evidence for policy. For that to work, it is crucial that we find a tone that will not lead people to withdraw or silence voices with other perspectives. But this is far from easy, given that such exchanges may involve critique...