It is fine to disagree with my op-ed,
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/90764
and in fact David Aronoff does so eloquently in the counterpoint
But this tweet by @dgurdasani1 is deeply problematic and highlights many of the ongoing failures among academics .

let me explain.... [thread]

In my essay on MedPage Today, I make the case, that after 2 doses of vaccination and 14 days, it is reasonable to relax some restriction like

remove the mask
Hug your mother
have dinner with other vaccinated people

In the thread, I give many reasons why this is true https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1351615669259833345

. @dgurdasani1 calls this 'dangerous misinformation'

While failing to cite a single statement that is erroneous, & frankly that label no sense to describe a policy choice I call a trade-off, where "reasonable people can disagree"

This type of rhetoric plays well on twitter...

...but is deeply harmful for the academy.

It implies that we are not allowed to hold or discuss ideas, that frankly many people, many doctors, many experts do hold

She calls it "negligent" and "putting lives at risk"

But that excessive language ignores the reality that we fundamentally disagree.

As I argue for 1800 words in the essay, it is not "putting lives at risk"

Comments like this, which frankly do not engage the scholarship, which ignore the fact a rebuttal has already been written https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90763

Which use slanderous, exaggerated, and false claims that my view is "misinformation" are a nice e.g. IMO of the problem with science during COVID

This has created the silencing attitude that @jflier and I feared https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/

Many junior scientists do not feel comfortable voicing their opinions in this climate of hostility

I hope we can do better going forward