ASA Connect

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

You are right this is not a political forum.  I would suggest you do more research on the quality of your sources (Vanity Fair) and maybe watch the briefings yourself.  Regarding UV light I believe there is research underway looking at this for a possible treatment so it may or may not be viable.  I could go on and on to defend my point of view but it is all a moot point to the original post.  The bottom line is our entire country has been shut down due to science-based advise.  What we (our State and Federal government) does from here should continue to be science based and it should address our economy.   

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

You are right this is not a political forum.  I would suggest you do more research on the quality of your sources (Vanity Fair) and maybe watch the briefings yourself.  Regarding UV light I believe there is research underway looking at this for a possible treatment so it may or may not be viable.  I could go on and on to defend my point of view but it is all a moot point to the original post.  The bottom line is our entire country has been shut down due to science-based advise.  What we (our State and Federal government) does from here should continue to be science based and it should address our economy.   

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

I hate to keep this discussion going and I hope it ends soon - so no need to respond. It may be best for all of us to agree to disagree and end it but I will say a few more words hopefully to help folks understand where some of us are coming from. Just to be clear, I respect all our members opinions and I am in no way trying to attack anyone or make us more divisive during these trying times.

I am starting to think that one of the main reasons for misunderstanding different points of view is related to perception. Let me explain.

Over the last 30 plus years, I worked for a few very large US and British international companies. A lot of issues became newsworthy over the years including workplace harassment, discrimination and political comments. We had to get annual training by human resources and legal. Treating our coworkers with respect was always one of the main messages. We were told that even it everything someone said was with good intentions, how the person would perceive of what was said was even more important. 

I think this makes sense. So even though it was common to make mention of the 1918 Spanish flu in past years, I now only refer to it as the 1918 flu to avoid any sense of discrimination. I do the same thing with the 2019 virus and avoid the country where it was believed to have originated just so I do not offend people.

If I attended a meeting with coworkers and someone made a statement which was believed to be not factual, I don't think a response like "I disagree and this is the reason why.." would have been considered to be offensive by anyone. The person who made the original statement would not feel like they were being attacked and we could work things out.

If instead, the person responding said "you are incapable of understanding science or facts and not interested in learning..." I think the person would be offended. Words matter!

Lastly, when I use to prepare year-end evaluations for my direct reports I always directed my comments in two buckets. Things that went well and things that need improvement. I think providing both positive and negative constructive criticism is most productive way to go. Even for our leaders.

Kind regards,
Dave

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

I hate to keep this discussion going and I hope it ends soon - so no need to respond. It may be best for all of us to agree to disagree and end it but I will say a few more words hopefully to help folks understand where some of us are coming from. Just to be clear, I respect all our members opinions and I am in no way trying to attack anyone or make us more divisive during these trying times.

I am starting to think that one of the main reasons for misunderstanding different points of view is related to perception. Let me explain.

Over the last 30 plus years, I worked for a few very large US and British international companies. A lot of issues became newsworthy over the years including workplace harassment, discrimination and political comments. We had to get annual training by human resources and legal. Treating our coworkers with respect was always one of the main messages. We were told that even it everything someone said was with good intentions, how the person would perceive of what was said was even more important. 

I think this makes sense. So even though it was common to make mention of the 1918 Spanish flu in past years, I now only refer to it as the 1918 flu to avoid any sense of discrimination. I do the same thing with the 2019 virus and avoid the country where it was believed to have originated just so I do not offend people.

If I attended a meeting with coworkers and someone made a statement which was believed to be not factual, I don't think a response like "I disagree and this is the reason why.." would have been considered to be offensive by anyone. The person who made the original statement would not feel like they were being attacked and we could work things out.

If instead, the person responding said "you are incapable of understanding science or facts and not interested in learning..." I think the person would be offended. Words matter!

Lastly, when I use to prepare year-end evaluations for my direct reports I always directed my comments in two buckets. Things that went well and things that need improvement. I think providing both positive and negative constructive criticism is most productive way to go. Even for our leaders.

Kind regards,
Dave

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Lori

Following up your link, let me suggest this nonpartisan perspective that might be informative for you :

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/08/science-under-trump-report.pdf

It's a little dated now published almost 2 years ago, but it starts out with the statement  "A year and a half into the Trump administration, its record on science policy in several agencies and departments is abysmal. Evidence rolls in daily that this administration is undermining long-established processes for science to inform public policy (Carter et al. 2017)."

I am trying hard to provide data and you come back with personal attacks and slogans. 

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Stan,

Here we go again. I would like to agree to disagree and, frankly, I am the person being attacked to no end, personally.  If you, somehow, think you were personally attacked I apologize because that is not my intention.  

This analysis by The Union of Concerned Scientists tells me, with data analysis, how sixteen science-based federal government agencies felt in 2018.  I could dig deeper to see what was going on in 2018 with the federal government agencies to feel this way but it is too off subject.  I consider this data (we agree) but it doesn't dispute the fact the president is listening to science-based advice on COVID-19 from science-based professionals in 2020 to the point of shutting down our country.

Respectfully, and not meant to be personal, by your logic you are saying that a person, regardless of their actions today on a current event, is summed up by the person's perceived past statements whether true or not.  Again, you are free to feel that way.  I disagree.

My point about politics and science is not personal to you and I do think it is a problem for our profession as I previously stated.  There should be no politics in science which was why I referenced the article in my last post.  Political bias is here, to my great disappointment, which I find to be a threat to science overall.  

I have learned a lesson though, do not speak up on negative statements towards the president made by other members in this science-based community because it isn't a popular opinion.  This is the opposite from what I ask my staff to do.  I ask them to disagree with each other and to speak up.  For example, I ask them to poke holes in my logic, opinion or analysis because I actually believe it gives us a better data product.  Sometimes a person has a point and I could choose to address it or not but my eyes were opened to their opinion.  

Again I agree to disagree. 

Lori

Following up your link, let me suggest this nonpartisan perspective that might be informative for you :

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/08/science-under-trump-report.pdf

It's a little dated now published almost 2 years ago, but it starts out with the statement  "A year and a half into the Trump administration, its record on science policy in several agencies and departments is abysmal. Evidence rolls in daily that this administration is undermining long-established processes for science to inform public policy (Carter et al. 2017)."

I am trying hard to provide data and you come back with personal attacks and slogans. 

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Hang tough, Lori.  When I was an undergrad in the mid-1960s, professors in all disciplines taught their subjects giving no hint as to their politics.  Slowly over the decades, what I was observing retreated to my confident belief that at least, surely, mathematics, statistics and the sciences, by their nature, would not succumb to the infiltration.  Sadly, for quite a few years now, we have been beyond even that.  Your response was apt.  I encourage those posting on the ASA Connect Digest to avoid political digs and talking points.

Stan,

Here we go again. I would like to agree to disagree and, frankly, I am the person being attacked to no end, personally.  If you, somehow, think you were personally attacked I apologize because that is not my intention.  

This analysis by The Union of Concerned Scientists tells me, with data analysis, how sixteen science-based federal government agencies felt in 2018.  I could dig deeper to see what was going on in 2018 with the federal government agencies to feel this way but it is too off subject.  I consider this data (we agree) but it doesn't dispute the fact the president is listening to science-based advice on COVID-19 from science-based professionals in 2020 to the point of shutting down our country.

Respectfully, and not meant to be personal, by your logic you are saying that a person, regardless of their actions today on a current event, is summed up by the person's perceived past statements whether true or not.  Again, you are free to feel that way.  I disagree.

My point about politics and science is not personal to you and I do think it is a problem for our profession as I previously stated.  There should be no politics in science which was why I referenced the article in my last post.  Political bias is here, to my great disappointment, which I find to be a threat to science overall.  

I have learned a lesson though, do not speak up on negative statements towards the president made by other members in this science-based community because it isn't a popular opinion.  This is the opposite from what I ask my staff to do.  I ask them to disagree with each other and to speak up.  For example, I ask them to poke holes in my logic, opinion or analysis because I actually believe it gives us a better data product.  Sometimes a person has a point and I could choose to address it or not but my eyes were opened to their opinion.  

Again I agree to disagree. 

Lori

Following up your link, let me suggest this nonpartisan perspective that might be informative for you :

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/08/science-under-trump-report.pdf

It's a little dated now published almost 2 years ago, but it starts out with the statement  "A year and a half into the Trump administration, its record on science policy in several agencies and departments is abysmal. Evidence rolls in daily that this administration is undermining long-established processes for science to inform public policy (Carter et al. 2017)."

I am trying hard to provide data and you come back with personal attacks and slogans. 

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Stan,

Here we go again. I would like to agree to disagree and, frankly, I am the person being attacked to no end, personally.  If you, somehow, think you were personally attacked I apologize because that is not my intention.  

This analysis by The Union of Concerned Scientists tells me, with data analysis, how sixteen science-based federal government agencies felt in 2018.  I could dig deeper to see what was going on in 2018 with the federal government agencies to feel this way but it is too off subject.  I consider this data (we agree) but it doesn't dispute the fact the president is listening to science-based advice on COVID-19 from science-based professionals in 2020 to the point of shutting down our country.

Respectfully, and not meant to be personal, by your logic you are saying that a person, regardless of their actions today on a current event, is summed up by the person's perceived past statements whether true or not.  Again, you are free to feel that way.  I disagree.

My point about politics and science is not personal to you and I do think it is a problem for our profession as I previously stated.  There should be no politics in science which was why I referenced the article in my last post.  Political bias is here, to my great disappointment, which I find to be a threat to science overall.  

I have learned a lesson though, do not speak up on negative statements towards the president made by other members in this science-based community because it isn't a popular opinion.  This is the opposite from what I ask my staff to do.  I ask them to disagree with each other and to speak up.  For example, I ask them to poke holes in my logic, opinion or analysis because I actually believe it gives us a better data product.  Sometimes a person has a point and I could choose to address it or not but my eyes were opened to their opinion.  

Again I agree to disagree. 

Lori

Following up your link, let me suggest this nonpartisan perspective that might be informative for you :

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/08/science-under-trump-report.pdf

It's a little dated now published almost 2 years ago, but it starts out with the statement  "A year and a half into the Trump administration, its record on science policy in several agencies and departments is abysmal. Evidence rolls in daily that this administration is undermining long-established processes for science to inform public policy (Carter et al. 2017)."

I am trying hard to provide data and you come back with personal attacks and slogans. 

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Stan,

Here we go again. I would like to agree to disagree and, frankly, I am the person being attacked to no end, personally.  If you, somehow, think you were personally attacked I apologize because that is not my intention.  

This analysis by The Union of Concerned Scientists tells me, with data analysis, how sixteen science-based federal government agencies felt in 2018.  I could dig deeper to see what was going on in 2018 with the federal government agencies to feel this way but it is too off subject.  I consider this data (we agree) but it doesn't dispute the fact the president is listening to science-based advice on COVID-19 from science-based professionals in 2020 to the point of shutting down our country.

Respectfully, and not meant to be personal, by your logic you are saying that a person, regardless of their actions today on a current event, is summed up by the person's perceived past statements whether true or not.  Again, you are free to feel that way.  I disagree.

My point about politics and science is not personal to you and I do think it is a problem for our profession as I previously stated.  There should be no politics in science which was why I referenced the article in my last post.  Political bias is here, to my great disappointment, which I find to be a threat to science overall.  

I have learned a lesson though, do not speak up on negative statements towards the president made by other members in this science-based community because it isn't a popular opinion.  This is the opposite from what I ask my staff to do.  I ask them to disagree with each other and to speak up.  For example, I ask them to poke holes in my logic, opinion or analysis because I actually believe it gives us a better data product.  Sometimes a person has a point and I could choose to address it or not but my eyes were opened to their opinion.  

Again I agree to disagree. 

Lori

Following up your link, let me suggest this nonpartisan perspective that might be informative for you :

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/08/science-under-trump-report.pdf

It's a little dated now published almost 2 years ago, but it starts out with the statement  "A year and a half into the Trump administration, its record on science policy in several agencies and departments is abysmal. Evidence rolls in daily that this administration is undermining long-established processes for science to inform public policy (Carter et al. 2017)."

I am trying hard to provide data and you come back with personal attacks and slogans. 

Stan,

I do not have any interest in going through all my arguments again.  You clearly give more weight to your political leaning and on the remark about the president being anti-science.  I still haven't seen factual evidence that is true. You are free to assume whatever you want.  I prefer to stick with observation on the fact that the whole country was shut down by the President and his administration due to science-based advice.  I heard Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx say, in their own words, the president listens to their advice.  This observation proves the fact that the President is listening to science-based advice to shut down the country due to COVID-19.  Maybe you can look at some of their interviews.  I can go on and on to make my point, again, but the problem is you will never believe or even entertain the idea I am right or I have a point.  That's what political bias does.  It closes your mind to any other information that could be relevant (like observation).  

If we want to promote data and science we need to keep our eyes open and be willing to read contradictory information that may not always measure up to your preconceived ideas.  

Lastly, take a look on the internet, on what you can find about science with politics on both sides. If you can't see that science is being negatively impacted by politics it is a problem for our profession.  I read from both left and right leanings.  I view methodologies regardless of the outcome, I seek every point of view and eventually I form an opinion.  I don't look at a list of Tweets and only look at left leaning information to form an opinion about a person or a situation.   So, I will leave you with one possible right leaning opinion piece quote I think had a great point (which you can completely disregard because you are left leaning):

"As Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief and executive editor of RealClearPolitics, recently wrote, political bias and social "wokeness" infect everything. From news, sports, weather and entertainment to the food we eat, everything is politicized - even, sadly but not surprisingly, science and medicine and even something as frightening and life-disrupting as the COVID-19 coronavirus, as we saw this past week when the Senate and then the House fought over the terms of a relief package for a nation in virtual lockdown." 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/489962-what-if-the-sky-is-falling-coronavirus-models-are-simply-wrong

Lori

 Reading your responses leaves much to be desired.  

 Let me remind you of the original premise of the discussion, something that seems to have gotten sidelined by you and some others who have contributed to this thread.  

 David Corliss wrote referring to the original letter: "The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science …".

In your first response, you countered with the claim "…the President's decisions have been based on science…". So that broad statement was your initial contribution to challenging David's premise.  Subsequent letters from you and others diverged to more or less mount a political defense, never really addressing the premise. 

I focused on just David's broad statement and presented you with my data supporting David's statement. My data was Trump's own words. Words do matter, especially coming from the President, but it seems that you do not regard someone's words as data. If that's the case, then it seems there's a double standard operating here. You want to accept the words that you like, but reject those that you don't like.  Tweets for example you wrote should not be considered "data" but your argument is convenience based.

But more than that, we as a profession have an essential interest in promoting a data and science based decision making principle. If we see egregious violations of this among our leaders, I believe we have an institutional, as well as personal obligation to encourage otherwise. In connection with this, we can have dissenting opinions, and we should present our positions as clearly as possible, but facts are not to be confused with opinion or political bias.

In my earlier remarks, I suggested - based on previous evidence such at the 2016 Scientific American article - that 

1. An open letter addressed to the President is not the most effective channel for scientific advocacy
2. Working with state-level government organizations is more effective 
3. Working with the excellent ASA Science Policy and Advocacy team is most effective

Some have been concerned that this is too political and defended the President. As my argument has always been the best practices for advocacy, please allow me to ask those who raising these concerns - for example, Lori Silver: Do you believe an open letter to the President is effective? If not, what does your experience in advocacy show works best? You have suggested what we shouldn't do. What do you think we should do to address the President? 

Thank you!

Not commenting on the science, I have little experience in health care. Instead, I would like to address the framing and targeting of the letter. The content is scientific, well-thought out, and clearly expressed. That's a serious problem with a President incapable of understanding science and not interested in learning, is determined anti-science, and appears to frame this entire event through the lens of a re-election campaign.

This excellent letter might have much greater impact if addressed to and shared with health care leaders - as indeed you have begun by posting here. Circulating the letter to state-level health care leaders will be better received, resulting in greater effect. I hope the letter is more widely shared in the medical community, beyond biostatistics. I expect it is there that the letter will provide the greatest benefit. 

Many thanks to David Kaye and Stan Altan for their data-driven perspectives on this question. My intention is not to start of political discussion - indeed, it was not my understanding that this view is either novel or exceptional. For example, here is an essay in Scientific American on this subject, from November 2016.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on-science-are-shockingly-ignorant/ 

My intention instead has been the non-political objective of advocating for effective advocacy. Returning to the original post, I must  both applaud the letter while reiterating the importance of going through to most effective channels. The ASA's Science Policy and Advocacy office, led by Steve Pierson, is both an very effective in science advocacy and - as I may say from personal experience - an excellent source of help in the work of others. Their kind and highly skilled assistance has been invaluable in my own, very minor work as a human rights statistician and journalist in Data For Good. I commend Dr. Pierson and ASA Science Policy and Advocacy to those looking for the most effective ways and means in science advocacy, whether regarding the COVID-19 pandemic or other issues.

For we are all advocates, every one of us - not for ourselves but for each other, and for the work we share in using statistical science to help others, create stronger communities, and a better world.

David