Recommended by Carl Heine, Ph.D. "ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (May 4, 2020) - The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) today launches a chatbot on WhatsApp to connect its millions of users with the translated work of more than 80 fact-checking organizations worldwide. By using the IFCN's chatbot on WhatsApp, citizens can easily check whether content about COVID-19 has already been rated as false by professional fact-checkers."
The current debate over intersectionality is really three debates: one based on what academics like Crenshaw actually mean by the term, one based on how activists seeking to eliminate disparities between groups have interpreted the term, and a third on how some conservatives are responding to its use by those activists.
the American legal and socioeconomic order was largely built on racism.
Crenshaw argued that the court’s narrow view of discrimination was a prime example of the “conceptual limitations of ... single-issue analyses” regarding how the law considers both racism and sexism.
Judge Harris Wangelin ruled against the plaintiffs, writing in part that “black women” could not be considered a separate, protected class within the law, or else it would risk opening a “Pandora’s box” of minorities who would demand to be heard in the la
Crenshaw’s theory went mainstream, arriving in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015 and gaining widespread attention during the 2017 Women’s March,
“What was puzzling is that usually with ideas that people take seriously, they actually try to master them, or at least try to read the sources that they are citing for the proposition. Often, that doesn’t happen with intersectionality
Beginning in 2015 and escalating ever since, the conservative response to intersectionality has ranged from mild amusement to outright horror.
When you talk to conservatives about the term itself, however, they’re more measured. They say the concept of intersectionality — the idea that people experience discrimination differently depending on their overlapping identities — isn’t the problem.
the idea is more or less indisputable.
What many conservatives object to is not the term but its application on college campuses and beyond.
“Where the fight begins,” French said, “is when intersectionality moves from descriptive to prescriptive.”
“There have always been people, from the very beginning of the civil rights movement, who had denounced the creation of equality rights on the grounds that it takes something away from them.”
To Crenshaw, the most common critiques of intersectionality — that the theory represents a “new caste system” — are actually affirmations of the theory’s fundamental truth: that individuals have individual identities that intersect in ways that impact how they are viewed, understood, and treated.
But Crenshaw said that contrary to her critics’ objections, intersectionality isn’t “an effort to create the world in an inverted image of what it is now.” Rather, she said, the point of intersectionality is to make room “for more advocacy and remedial practices” to create a more egalitarian system.
She wants to get rid of those existing power dynamics altogether — changing the very structures that undergird our politics, law, and culture in order to level the playing field.
efforts to eliminate gender disparities would require examining how women of color experience gender bias differently from white women (and how nonwhite men do too, compared to white men).
Once we acknowledge the role of race and racism, what do we do about it? And who should be responsible for addressing racism, anyway?
"The current debate over intersectionality is really three debates: one based on what academics like Crenshaw actually mean by the term, one based on how activists seeking to eliminate disparities between groups have interpreted the term, and a third on how some conservatives are responding to its use by those activists."
"Now more than ever, it's important to look boldly at the reality of race and gender bias -- and understand how the two can combine to create even more harm. Kimberlé Crenshaw uses the term "intersectionality" to describe this phenomenon; as she says, if you're standing in the path of multiple forms of exclusion, you're likely to get hit by both. In this moving talk, she calls on us to bear witness to this reality and speak up for victims of prejudice."
The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).
Although successful surveillance systems have long existed for influenza, the disease is confirmed by a laboratory in a tiny minority of cases.
Some worry that the 68 deaths from Covid-19 in the U.S. as of March 1610 will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800, 68,000, 680,000 … along with similar catastrophic patterns around the globe. Is that a realistic scenario, or bad science fiction? How can we tell at what point such a curve might stop?
In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns.
This has been the perspective behind the different stance of the United Kingdom keeping schools open12, at least until as I write this. In the absence of data on the real course of the epidemic, we don’t know whether this perspective was brilliant or catastrophic.
One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health.
At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.
Dr. Michael Kurisu D.O. "My take is this article is written by a very credible source.
John P.A. Ioannidis is from Stanford and great resource.
Makes argument that we are basing a LOT of our decisions on faulty or NO data !
Its fascinating to me that there has been less than 10,000 deaths globally and we have had SO MUCH DISRUPTION in the economy.
I definitely feel we should be tracking the amount of deaths that are going to occur from people that will be pushed into poverty as well as the number of people being denied access to medical care right now.
Yes… with COVID19, it CAN get much worse…. But maybe not… we don't know yet.
This article actually increased my morale and put me on track to help GET MORE DATA.
Then we can make informed decisions.
And then TRACK ALL THE DATA moving forward.
DeAunne Denmark, MD, PhD, "Excellent piece spelling out the pervasive and critical issues due to abysmal lack/tardiness in US testing, especially of large populations where initial outbreaks occurred, for those both visibly sick and not. And most importantly, healthcare workers. We cannot even begin to estimate CFR, much less develop reliable projection models, without valid data on everybody who is carrying.
"The most valuable piece of information for answering those questions would be to know the current prevalence of the infection in a random sample of a population and to repeat this exercise at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections."
in the USA, the likelihood of receiving an access code to activate health portals is significantly lower for minorities, the uninsured, non-English speakers and older patients.11
Research suggests that negative implicit biases can affect the quality of health interactions and are associated with fewer signals of support and empathy towards patients representing some disadvantaged demographic groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, less educated and older patients.1
Open notes might be viewed as extending the visit, potentially thereby elongating and strengthening patient–physician interactions before and after the pressures of the clinical encounter.
investigators found that patients who were non-white or less educated reported more benefits than their counterparts:
Although some health organisations provide portals in a range of languages, clinical notes are typically offered in one language only.
access to open notes appears to help some patients who speak another primary language by allowing them, or a care partner, to read and recall information.
77% (357/462) reported reading their notes as extremely important for remembering their care plan,
It is estimated that, on average, patients do not recall about half of the health information communicated during visits, with this figure likely higher among those with lower levels of health literacy.2
health literacy is now recognised as a driver of health disparities.
By offering patients access to records that document what was discussed during visits, open notes may provide a novel forum for augmenting health literacy among some patients.
As one patient noted: “I like my summaries because I can go back and revisit them”.1
in a large study of patients who read notes, 38% (8588/22 753) reported sharing them with others, predominantly family members
Limitations
Open notes are becoming increasingly common, and preliminary data suggest they may hold particular benefits for vulnerable patient populations
Second, as preliminary evidence suggests, it is possible that open notes may increase trust between patients and clinicians, reduce transmission of bias and increase patient engagement, especially among vulnerable patient populations
co-creation of medical notes holds promise and is currently under investigation