The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused an increase in the use of pulse oximeters, and a recent report (Sjoding et al.External Link Disclaimer) suggests that the devices may be less accurate in people with dark skin pigmentation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is informing patients and health care providers that although pulse oximetry is useful for estimating blood oxygen levels, pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances that should be considered. Patients with conditions such as COVID-19 who monitor their condition at home should pay attention to all signs and symptoms of their condition and communicate any concerns to their health care provider.

Pulse Oximeter Accuracy and Limitations: FDA Safety Communication

Here are some of the reasons why I chose to mask even though I have had my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (yay!):

Science Says Sunday – 5 reasons I’m still wearing my mask even after getting the COVID-19 vaccine

IMPORTANT NOTE: Health Ministry sources are briefing that these numbers should be "taken with an asterisk" and are likely to change as data comes in. One particular question raised was whether ethnic and socioeconomic factors were included in building the control group.

For people asking me: I'm not a medical expect, but I don't expect to see results this strong for the Astrazeneca vaccine. The AZ vaccine is great. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines look like they're miracles.

Alternatively, there could be some herd effects starting to happen in mostly-vaccinated populations compared to towns with low numbers of vaccinated people.

This new data from Israel's Health Ministry, published a few minutes ago, is SO good that I'm actually a little suspicious of it. Could be a function of the short dosing interval giving a few weeks of very high antibodies?

Yet more good news on the Pfizer vaccine, showing even higher effectiveness 14 days after 2nd dose. Effectiveness: 95.8% at preventing infection 98% at preventing symptoms 98.9% at preventing hospitalisations 99.2% at stopping serious disease 98.9% at preventing death

In Great Britain, 95 per cent of people aged over 70 have had at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine, according to a survey of 6000 people by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Most of the remainder have been offered a vaccine and are waiting to receive it. Less than 1 per cent of people aged over 70 years said they declined the offer of a vaccine. Overall, 91 per cent of all adults surveyed said they had either been vaccinated already or would get vaccinated when offered it. These numbers are better than expected. For instance, in one UK survey done in December before vaccination began, just 72 per cent said they were willing to get vaccinated. However, the ONS survey did not include adults living in care homes or other establishments, and because of small sample sizes, the ONS says the percentage of people saying they have declined vaccination should be treated with caution.

Covid-19 news: 95 per cent of over 70s in Great Britain given vaccine

10.31234/osf.io/7328w

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised significant concerns regarding the effect of social disruptions on parental mental health, family well-being, and children’s adjustment. Due to the pace of the pandemic, measures of pandemic-related disruption have not been subject to rigorous empirical validation. To address this gap, a multi-national sample (United Kingdom, 76%; United States, 19%; Canada, 4%, and Australia, 1%) of 372 female caregivers and 158 male caregivers of 5-18 year-old children was recruited online. Participants completed a survey including a 25-item scale indexing disruption in finances, basic needs, personal and family welfare, career/education, household responsibilities, and family relationships related to the pandemic. An exploratory factor analysis yielded an optimal three-factor solution: factors included Income Stress (5 items related to income, debt, and job loss; loadings ranged from .57 to .91), Family Stress (7 items related to family altercations and child management; loadings from .57 to .87), and Chaos Stress (4 items related to access to supplies, crowded shopping areas, news coverage; loadings from .53 to .70). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated measurement invariance of each factor across female and male caregivers, indicating that factor structure, loadings, and thresholds were equivalent across groups. Composites reflective of each factor were computed, and paired samples t-tests showed that female caregivers consistently report higher levels of COVID-19 stress related to income, family, and chaos compared to male caregivers. Finally, concurrent validity was demonstrated by significant bivariate correlations between each scale and indicators of parental and child mental health and family relationships. This demonstrates validity of the COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale for use with female and male caregivers in family-based research. The current sample was predominantly White-European. Additional sampling and validation efforts are required in order to provide adequate description of racialized and minority communities at disproportionate risk of social consequences related to the pandemic.

The COVID-19 Family Stressor Scale: Validation and Measurement Invariance in Female and Male Caregivers

10.31234/osf.io/6na7t

As vaccines against COVID-19 are scarce, many countries have developed vaccination prioritization strategies focusing on ethical and epidemiological considerations. However, public acceptance of such strategies should be monitored to ensure successful implementation. In an experiment with N = 1,379 German participants, we investigated whether the public’s vaccination allocation preferences matched the prioritization strategy approved by the German government. Results revealed different allocations. While the government had top-prioritized vulnerable people (being of high age or accommodated in nursing homes for the elderly), participants deprioritized these groups and preferred exclusive allocation of the first available vaccines to medical staff and personnel caring for the elderly. Interestingly, allocation preferences did not change when participants were told how many individuals were included in each group. As differences between allocation policies and public preferences can affect trust in the government and threaten the social contract between generations, we discuss possible strategies to align vaccination prioritizations.

Allocation of COVID-19 vaccination: When public prioritization preferences differ from official regulations

Our next Covid-19: known unknowns webinar is about vaccines for covid-19. Find out more and register >> http://ow.ly/LQCy50DFYF7 @AllysonPollock @drphilhammond @mendel_random @bengoldacre #CovidUnknowns #COVID19

10.31234/osf.io/2dawr

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic (between 26 March and 2 April 2020), we analysed (n=1144) the social representations of the coronavirus and the differentiated perceptions according to the origins attributed to the appearance of the virus (Human vs Non-Human and Intentional vs. Unintentional) in a French population. The results show that the social representation is organized around five potentially central descriptive, anxiety-provoking and globally negative elements. But death and contagion are the only stable and structuring elements. The other elements vary according to the reason attributed to the object of fear. Depending on how individuals attribute the origin of the virus, social representations of it vary not only in terms of their content but also in terms of their structure. These results indicate how important it is to consider the perceptions that individuals share about the human (vs. non-human) and intentional (vs. unintentional) origin of an object of fear in the analysis of their representation of that object.

Social representations of the Coronavirus and causal perception of its origin. The role of reasons for fear.

10.31234/osf.io/eutp2

Amidst a global pandemic, people’ survival needs become salient and the ability for people to regulate feeling and actions might be particularly relevant to protecting oneself from harm. Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1998) proposes that people pursue their goals by having a focus on prevention (i.e., motivated by security) or promotion (i.e., motivated by pleasure). Prior research indicates that people focused on prevention (vs. promotion) are more likely to engage in health-protective behaviors, including sexual health behaviors, because they perceive more threats. Extending this reasoning to the sexual activity of single people during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a pre-registered longitudinal study (N = 174) examining the role of regulatory focus on people’s sexual behaviors. As hypothesized, results showed that single people who reported having a more prevention focus at the onset of the pandemic perceived greater threats caused by the pandemic two weeks later, which, in turn, predicted less frequent sexual activity and engagement in sex with fewer sexual partners the following two weeks. These effects were consistent even when controlling for promotion (i.e., pleasure motivations), personality, gender, and sexual orientation. Findings are discussed considering their implications for the sexual functioning and sexual health of single people.

Individual Motives for Security Influence Sexual Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic

10.31234/osf.io/b2ge6

We investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on optimism and meaning in life in a sample of the Netherlands Twin Register. Participants completed questions before (N=9964) and during the pandemic (N= 17464). A subsample completed both (N=6461). We applied twin models to investigate changes in the genetic architecture due to the pandemic. Around 15-20% of the sample was negatively affected by the pandemic, but the majority was stable (64-68%) or increased (15%) in optimism and meaning in life. Especially women, higher educated people, and people with poorer health experienced negative effects. Twin modelling indicated stable genetic variance and increasing person-specific environmental variance. The lower than unity genetic correlations across time (.75 and .63) suggest gene-environment interactions. Some people decrease in well-being, while others get more optimistic and consider their lives as more meaningful during the pandemic. These differences are partly explained by individual differences in genetic sensitivity.

Individual differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on optimism and meaning in life

10.31234/osf.io/zw93g

COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this paper provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies published in 2020 addressing two overarching questions. First, what are the mental health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic? Second, what are the neurological sequelae of contracting COVID-19? Our review of the evidence indicates that some facets of mental health suffered greatly during the early months of the pandemic (e.g., anxiety and depression increased), while other facets (life satisfaction) and correlates (social connection, loneliness) notably displayed resilience. In addition, early neurological data indicate several consequences of contracting COVID-19, both during infection and after recovery. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (1 urgent, 2 short-term, 4 ongoing) to support mental health and well-being during the pandemic and beyond.

A Review and Response to the Early Mental Health and Neurological Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic

10.31234/osf.io/g5trb

We frequently claim that lying is wrong, despite modeling that it is often right. The present research sheds light on this tension by unearthing systematic cases in which people believe lying is ethical in everyday communication and by proposing and testing a theory to explain these cases. Using both inductive and experimental approaches, I find that deception is perceived to be ethical, and individuals want to be deceived, when deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm. I identify eight implicit rules – pertaining to the targets of deception and the topic and timing of a conversation – that clarify systematic circumstances in which deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm, and I document the causal effect of each implicit rule on the endorsement of deception. I also explore how perceptions of unnecessary harm influence communicators’ use of deception in everyday life, above and beyond other moral concerns. This research provides insight into when and why people value honesty and paves the way for future research on when and why people embrace deception.

Community standards of deception: Deception is perceived to be ethical when it prevents unnecessary harm

10.31234/osf.io/yzd4m

Study Objectives: To prospectively examine changes in adolescent sleep before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in adolescents with and without ADHD. Methods: Participants were 122 adolescents (ages 15-17; 61% male; 48% with ADHD). Parents reported on adolescents’ sleep duration and difficulties initiating and maintaining sleep (DIMS); adolescents reported on sleep patterns, sleep duration, delayed sleep/wake behaviors, and daytime sleepiness before (September 2019-February 2020) and during (May-June 2020) COVID-19. Adolescents also reported on their health behaviors, COVID-19-related negative affect, and difficulties concentrating due to COVID-19. Results: Parents reported adolescents had more DIMS during COVID-19 than before COVID-19, with clinically-elevated rates increasing from 24% to 36%. Both bedtimes and waketimes shifted later during COVID-19, and adolescents reported more delayed sleep/wake behaviors. Adolescents also reported less daytime sleepiness and longer school night sleep duration during COVID-19. In considering differences between adolescents with and without ADHD, adolescents with ADHD did not experience an increase in school night sleep duration and were less likely to obtain recommended sleep duration during COVID-19. In the full sample, controlling for ADHD status, COVID-19-related sadness/loneliness was associated with increases in DIMS, and spending less time outside and more COVID-19-related worries/fears were associated with increases in delayed sleep/wake behaviors during COVID-19. Conclusions: COVID-19 had negative and positive impacts on adolescent sleep. Adolescents with ADHD did not experience the benefit of increased school night sleep duration during COVID-19 like adolescents without ADHD. Negative affect and health behaviors may be useful intervention targets for reducing negative impacts of COVID-19 for adolescent sleep.

Prospective Examination of Adolescent Sleep Patterns and Behaviors Before and During COVID-19

Vaccination on its own is not a way out of this pandemic. We need to use other tools and involve ordinary people

The UK has record death tolls, yet still the government has no clear Covid strategyHelen Ward

We have detected a new variant circulating in December in Manaus, Amazonas state, north Brazil, where very high attack rates have been estimated previously. The new lineage, named P.1 (descendent of B.1.1.28), contains a unique constellation of lineage defining mutations, including several mutations of known biological importance such as E484K, K417T, and N501Y. Importantly, the P.1 lineage was identified in 42% (13 out of 31) RT-PCR positive samples collected between 15 to 23 December, but it was absent in 26 publicly available genome surveillance samples collected in Manaus between March to November 2020. These findings indicate local transmission and possibly recent increase in the frequency of a new lineage from the Amazon region. The higher diversity and the earlier sampling dates of P.1. in Manaus corroborates the travel info of recently detected cases in Japan, suggesting the direction of travel was Manaus to Japan. The recent emergence of variants with multiple shared mutations in spike raises concern about convergent evolution to a new phenotype, potentially associated with an increase in transmissibility or propensity for re-infection of individuals.

Genomic characterisation of an emergent SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus: preliminary findings

Medics told they risk undermining public confidence by querying policy of three-month gap between doses

Vaccine experts defend UK decision to delay second Pfizer Covid jab

10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00008-6

Just as hope for relief from the COVID-19 pandemic brightened in December, with emergency use approval for vaccines following phase 3 trials and the start of immunisation programmes, unprecedented numbers of cases, hospital admissions, and deaths have been recorded, including in countries such as Germany and Japan that were previously celebrated for their public health response. Predictions that the northern hemisphere winter would be a difficult time for control of COVID-19, as is typically the case with respiratory viral diseases, have proved to be correct. Emergence in South Africa and the UK of new variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that are substantially more transmissible, has added to concerns that health services will be overwhelmed.

An exceptional vaccination policy in exceptional circumstances

The credibility of scientific findings and research relies on a 'common good': peer-review. The independent review and validation of work by experts is what distinguishes published scientific findings and marks them out as reliable, rigorous evidence.

Reviewing peer review: does the process need to change, and how?

The activity shows how the social media site remains a critical organizing tool of the anti-vaccine movement

Anti-vaccine protest at Dodger Stadium was organized on Facebook, including promotion of banned ‘Plandemic’ video

Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics

I'm happy to move to more refined statistical measures where there is good reason for them, and, as a scientist, I am happy to take whatever answer the data give us

The average Swede lives in a more densely populated area than the average German.

Erik, it's equally a bit disingenuous to directly compare, say, Germany to Sweden, given that former has 9 direct neighbours, and a population density almost 10 x greater. Sweden had a *huge* natural advantage, revealed in direct comparisons with other nordic countries.

Periodic reminder that in terms of outcomes, Swedish corona policy is thoroughly average in EU comparison – not exactly a model to be emulated by the rest of the world, nor a crime against humanity that should be prosecuted in the Hague.

details about human contact networks matter, as epidemiologists pointed out last spring. https://youtube.com/watch?v=BrrGxJT6-iA… If you think I am wrong about the relevant parameters for Sweden, I'd love to hear more. One place to start is saying how it differs from other Nordic countries

"Huge" inferred ("disingenuous?) causalities (you answer Erik by name but yours?). Do you think that the population is scattered equally over the country (do you suppose the same "advantage" for Brazil and Russia too?)? Number of neighbours when flight from further away imported?

Erik, it's equally a bit disingenuous to directly compare, say, Germany to Sweden, given that former has 9 direct neighbours, and a population density almost 10 x greater. Sweden had a *huge* natural advantage, revealed in direct comparisons with other nordic countries.

Periodic reminder that in terms of outcomes, Swedish corona policy is thoroughly average in EU comparison – not exactly a model to be emulated by the rest of the world, nor a crime against humanity that should be prosecuted in the Hague.

10.1038/s41562-020-01044-x

Digital contact tracing apps have been introduced globally as an instrument to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, privacy by design impedes both the evaluation of these tools and the deployment of evidence-based interventions to stimulate uptake. We combine an online panel survey with mobile tracking data to measure the actual usage of Germany’s official contact tracing app and reveal higher uptake rates among respondents with an increased risk of severe illness, but lower rates among those with a heightened risk of exposure to COVID-19. Using a randomized intervention, we show that informative and motivational video messages have very limited effect on uptake. However, findings from a second intervention suggest that even small monetary incentives can strongly increase uptake and help make digital contact tracing a more effective tool.

Tracking and promoting the usage of a COVID-19 contact tracing app

Yesterday on the Today programme, BBC Radio 4's flagship news programme, they included a number of stories/accounts of people obeying the lockdown rules. The idea behind this was to counter the effect whereby breaking the rules is normalised by hearing about instances of it on the news.

The effect of the news

This is the story of how I found what I believe to be scientific misconduct and what happened when I reported it.

I tried to report scientific misconduct. How did it go?

might it be possible for you to quickly scan the pages of the reference I indicated? it would probably make the discussion easier

Since i don't even see what we are conversating over at this point in time anymore what is your specific objection.

not really in this case, though....mine wasn't a general anti -Wikipedia reflex, but one specific to this entry- I did go and check it out before replying ;-)

Sure a bit dated and not my "go to" but for general discussion works most times.

sorry, I have a theoretical position on this, having worked on args. from ignorance quite a bit in last 15 years. I think Wikipedia article is poor and outdated. Suggestions: https://researchgate.net/profile/Ulrike_Hahn/publication/286232860_Rational_Argument/links/5694bd9d08aeab58a9a375a2/Rational-Argument.pdf… pps. 282-286

Where as evidence of absence is a deductive argument which must hold true absence of evidence isn't a valid inductive argument but a reversal of burden of proof in this context, a "argument of ignorance fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Moreover, when it comes to thinking about the inference from a logical perspective, the key to understanding (I think) is that there can be direct evidence for, direct evidence against, and no evidence. You need to consider 3 possibilities, see reference I sent earlier

the error here is that most inference is non-deductive, so the fact that something doesn't follow logically from something else, doesn't mean there is no evidence for it

premise (abcense of evidence) does contradict. In short if I have no evidence, than this just means that and nothing follows logically from that, especially for the absence of other things. Does this make sense?

As far as I got right now, my savest appearing argument is, that the fallacy is correct and true in its current state - abcense of evidence is no evidence of abcense - because if I conclude something from the abcense of evidence, this conclusion in itself is evidence which the

Very interesting method of testing once current concentration level ;) "We know things are true by them not being false and is proved by what would have to be true if the true thing was false." In this state I get it, but its really hard for me to follow.

this example may be to complex but in short how it follow in this conversation is we know things are true by them not being false and is proved by what would have to be true if the true thing was false.

No even in that it's proven by the contrary being false. How does a missile know where it is?

That's not what I meant, but certainly that is true. If there is evidence for something, then there literally cannot be "no evidence" for it. There is evidence. But what I meant was that if something is not true, then there is an absence of evidence for it.

Not sure I follow. Do you mean, if there is 'no evidence', than there cannot be evidence for something simultaniously?

No it's literally not because no absence of evidence "dead stop" is evidence of absence there is the added cause "it's absent and we know should be there" no stop which makes it not a fallacy the word "absence of evidence ""alone"" isn't evidence of absence" is implied.

Very often, absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. That's why the statement is false.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is literally false" Only if your focus is on evidence instead of absence. But the statement and its falacy is in my eyes about reality not evidence.

great list, but I think one of the main problems with "absence of evidence fallacy" is its phrasing: "absence of evid. is not the same as evidence of absence" is a true statement, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is literally false @richarddmorey

but then the "fallacy" has ZERO applicability to the statistical cases this thread started with....

you can't have any form of evidence. If you concider any form of evidence, than what is talked about than isn't anymore what the falacy sais.

But a conclusion is a from of evidence, isn't it. Without any conclusion it seems to be irellevant from where you don't draw a conclusion. When ever you draw a conclusion than thats evidence and this would contradict the premise. So to keep the premise of 'abcense of evidence'

the error here is that most inference is non-deductive, so the fact that something doesn't follow logically from something else, doesn't mean there is no evidence for it

premise (abcense of evidence) does contradict. In short if I have no evidence, than this just means that and nothing follows logically from that, especially for the absence of other things. Does this make sense?

As far as I got right now, my savest appearing argument is, that the fallacy is correct and true in its current state - abcense of evidence is no evidence of abcense - because if I conclude something from the abcense of evidence, this conclusion in itself is evidence which the

Very interesting method of testing once current concentration level ;) "We know things are true by them not being false and is proved by what would have to be true if the true thing was false." In this state I get it, but its really hard for me to follow.

this example may be to complex but in short how it follow in this conversation is we know things are true by them not being false and is proved by what would have to be true if the true thing was false.

No even in that it's proven by the contrary being false. How does a missile know where it is?

That's not what I meant, but certainly that is true. If there is evidence for something, then there literally cannot be "no evidence" for it. There is evidence. But what I meant was that if something is not true, then there is an absence of evidence for it.

Not sure I follow. Do you mean, if there is 'no evidence', than there cannot be evidence for something simultaniously?

No it's literally not because no absence of evidence "dead stop" is evidence of absence there is the added cause "it's absent and we know should be there" no stop which makes it not a fallacy the word "absence of evidence ""alone"" isn't evidence of absence" is implied.

Very often, absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. That's why the statement is false.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is literally false" Only if your focus is on evidence instead of absence. But the statement and its falacy is in my eyes about reality not evidence.

great list, but I think one of the main problems with "absence of evidence fallacy" is its phrasing: "absence of evid. is not the same as evidence of absence" is a true statement, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is literally false @richarddmorey

Looking for some tips to counter conspiracy theories and misinformation? This Communication Flyer - an idea of PhD student @kostas_exarhia during the @SciBeh Virtual Workshop in November 2020 - might help! https://sks.to/commsflyer

Finally: whenever we're dealing with complex, multi-faceted problems that don't belong to any one discipline, we might want to pay particular attention to people who've attained journeyman status in more than one relevant discipline. /8

We should probably be attentive to halo effects, in which our positive view of somebody's competence in one area bleeds over into other kinds of positive judgments. /7

It might help to stop calling people "experts" tout court, and always append the area they're an expert in. That would make it a little easier to assess their location relative to the circle of competence. /6

By all means, let's continue to rely on the judgments of experts operating within their circle of competence. But let's not assume that they have any particular expertise – or even knowledge – about stuff outside of it. /5

As Warren Buffett has emphasized, having a narrow circle of competence is not necessarily a problem. The problem appears when people don't know where the boundary is, and operate with the same confidence inside and outside of it. /4

Call me naive, but in the microenvironment where I work – in the intersection of science and the humanities – people take a certain amount of pride in being well read, even outside of their official domain of expertise. /3

Ask a professor of (say) virology about the properties of viruses and I assume you'll get a dependable answer; but ask about human behavior, public policy, causal inference, the law – or God forbid, ethics – the answer can go whichever which way. /2

One point that the pandemic has brought home to me is just how narrow people's expertise is. I'm regularly surprised by how a celebrated professor of X can exhibit a sub-college-level understanding of Y, even when X and Y are related. /1

OK so you missed the context provided in the subsequent tweets. Could happen to anyone.

yes: took it to be data provided in support of the headline claim in the initial tweet: "in terms of outcomes, Swedish corona policy is thoroughly average in EU comparison" my point is there is a narrow reading/look at data on which this is true, but that that data is misleading

You read the entire thread?

I thought I joined the "conversation" at the top- did I miss part of a prior thread? Post I responded to seemed to be the beginning of a thread...ie. "regular reminder that..."

It seems to me that C here is either misunderstanding the nature of the conversation they joined, or else is deliberately trying to derail it.

Now here comes C: "Aha! B is misleading and morally fraudulent, because there is another runner, Bob, who's similar to Bill in relevant respects, and Bob won the race!" C may be right about Bob, but Bob and his location in the ranking are irrelevant to the disagreement.

Let me try an analogy: A, a sports journalist, writes: "Bill came in last in the race, as shown by this ranking here." B says "That's incorrect: as the ranking shows, he was in the middle of the pack." A and B are having a meaningful disagreement about a verifiable fact.

2/2 and seems misleading to the point that I personally, as someone who uses data and statistics to try and faithfully describe reality professionally, view it with real unease. I am sure I would consider it inappropriate in other data contexts. Others may disagree, of course.

Just to be clear, you're saying any comparison with EU averages is "lacking in candour or frankness, insincere, morally fraudulent"?

Erik, it's equally a bit disingenuous to directly compare, say, Germany to Sweden, given that former has 9 direct neighbours, and a population density almost 10 x greater. Sweden had a *huge* natural advantage, revealed in direct comparisons with other nordic countries.

Periodic reminder that in terms of outcomes, Swedish corona policy is thoroughly average in EU comparison – not exactly a model to be emulated by the rest of the world, nor a crime against humanity that should be prosecuted in the Hague.

So if you spend your time trolling people like me, I feel bad for you. I feel worse for others who receive it more regularly than I do due to their skin color, faith, gender, orientation, etc. End of rant.

I'd be lying if I said it didn't affect me. I know many others who've recalibrated their efforts and resources, often to the detriment of their own mental/physicial health and career ambitions, feel likewise. I've even had death threats. That was jarring.

It's unfortunate that some on this platform have nothing better to do with their time than intentionally twist the words of scientists, physicians, public health agencies, etc. to make some kind of point. I don't get it. This pandemic not been fun for us, trust me.

It's easier to tell a person they're morons, uneducated, or consciously endangering people than it is to analyze the data and make evidence-based and practical conclusions from it. This is especially true if it doesn't comport to one's previously held views.

I could link to a bevy of research articles to support that claim, but that'll only further enrage those already looking to pick a Twitter fight. Which kind of brings me to a larger point: Public health is complex. It balances the pragmatic with the optimal.

Twitter is clearly not a place for nuanced talks on science. Rather, absolutism is favored. I stated today that if everyone wore procedure masks, then COVID-19 prevalence would plummet. That is backed up by the science. I'm sorry if that offends you.

If you'd like to see longer and more detailed items which don't fit on twitter, please join us on substack!

The year 2020 will be remembered for two events of global significance: the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. In this chapter, we summarize recent studies using large public Twitter data sets on these issues. We have three primary objectives. First, we delineate epistemological and practical considerations when combining the traditions of computational research and social science research. A sensible balance should be struck when the stakes are high between advancing social theory and concrete, timely reporting of ongoing events. We additionally comment on the computational challenges of gleaning insight from large amounts of social media data. Second, we characterize the role of social bots in social media manipulation around the discourse on the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Third, we compare results from 2020 to prior years to note that, although bot accounts still contribute to the emergence of echo-chambers, there is a transition from state-sponsored campaigns to domestically emergent sources of distortion. Furthermore, issues of public health can be confounded by political orientation, especially from localized communities of actors who spread misinformation. We conclude that automation and social media manipulation pose issues to a healthy and democratic discourse, precisely because they distort representation of pluralism within the public sphere.

Social Bots and Social Media Manipulation in 2020: The Year in Review

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?

10.31234/osf.io/53a9f

The COVID-19 pandemic reached staggering new peaks during an ongoing global resurgence at the end of 2020. Although public health guidelines initially helped to slow the spread of disease, widespread pandemic fatigue and prolonged harm to financial stability and mental wellbeing have contributed to this resurgence. In this late stage of the pandemic, it is clear that new interventions are needed to support long-term behavior change. Here, we examined subjective perceived risk about COVID-19, and the relationship between perceived risk and engagement in risky behaviors. In Study 1 (N = 303), we found that subjective perceived risk is inaccurate but predicts compliance with public health guidelines. In Study 2 (N = 760), we developed a multi-faceted intervention designed to realign perceived risk with actual risk. Participants completed one of three variants of an episodic simulation task; we expected that imagining a COVID-related scenario would increase the salience of risk information and enhance behavior change. Immediately following the episodic simulation, participants completed a risk estimation task with personalized feedback about local risk levels. We found that information prediction error, a measure of surprise, drove beneficial change in perceived risk and willingness to engage in risky activities. Imagining a COVID-related scenario beforehand enhanced the effect of prediction error on learning. Importantly, our intervention produced lasting effects that persisted after a 1-3 week delay. Overall, we describe a fast and feasible online intervention that effectively changed beliefs and intentions about risky behaviors.

Pairing Facts with Imagined Consequences Improves Pandemic-Related Risk Perception