scientists have increasingly been doing this during covid by publishing on biorxiv and then discussing on other channels (twitter etc)
for ex, this paper [0] by UCSF analyzing 26 of the 29 viral proteins expressed by the virus was posted on biorxiv and publicized further via twitter [1]. they identified 69 FDA approved drugs that target these proteins, giving the medical and scientific community a massive head start on studying drugs that could potentially be near-term treatments
there are some parts of academic science that are stuck in the last century but scientists themselves are certainly not
for those interested in learning more about how science works and how scientists operate, the covid situation is a great way to see how its done. modern science is amazing
Yeah, I'm following a bunch of scientists on Twitter and have been watching from the sidelines with awe and admiration. The contrast to the seeming hordes of dumbfucks could hardly be more remarkable; sometimes it's hard to keep in mind the same platform is host to both sets of people.
This Doctor, Health Commissioner of NYC, Oxiris Barbot, seemed to take a lot of joy in proclaiming: Today our city is celebrating the #LunarNewYear parade in Chinatown, a beautiful cultural tradition with a rich history in our city. I want to remind everyone to enjoy the parade and not change any plans due to misinformation spreading about #coronavirus. https://on.nyc.gov/377LlcH
Either way no data is provided there, but the case fatality rate for folks under 10 is 0% and under 29 is between 0.1% and 0%. If this hypothetical doctor even exists, it wouldn't be hard to pick 350 people, give them some HCQ and Azithromycin and have 100% of them recover -- as they would have even if they hadn't received anything. That's more or less what this study shows.
In fact, as the fatality rate for under-29s is 0.1%, you have a 70% ((1-0.001)^12) chance that any randomly selected 350 of them will recover.
I don't really know what point you're trying to make here. Neither doctor would come anywhere near my list of experts. The real experts are highly critical of both those offering miracle cures and public health people who are slow to respond.
There are dumbfucks with MD after their name too, unfortunately.
Every single person on this list is brilliant at what they do and a good communicator, with excellent s/n in their tweets. I've also removed people (like Jeremy Konyndyk, who otherwise I would recommend highly) who have a lot of insight but also a high emotional tone or a tendency to lean into politics. I've also tried to represent a wide range of expertise, from immunology to sequencing-based virology to public health specialists to frontline ER doctors.
So it's as close to a golden source of information as I could make it. I hope it's useful to some people, though I know the reach of it is a tiny fraction as if I made some dumb clickbait that happened to go viral.
Wikipedia style is unreliable. I'm aware of quite a few errors. Why I don't fix them then? Because my edits would be reverted. Or because the page has been locked.
Academic literature in contrast, has multiple parallel journals. If one is suppressing you, you can go to the next. Of course if you go to a less reliable one, then people might not trust your research.
