News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by simonh on Saturday December 19, 2020 @01:01PM (#25479490)
In the early months of the outbreak there was almost no evidence, and yet we reasonably expected the experts to give their best shot at an answer. They looked at the probabilities as best they could estimate them from the characteristics of similar diseases, that's all the evidence they had at the time, and updated their guidance as they got more data.

The problem has always been that this disease is very unusual in many different ways. This has quite understandably caused many best efforts at estimating it's behaviour to turn out to be wrong.

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by fastball on Saturday December 19, 2020 @01:06PM (#25479544)
It's really not enough though. Populations (and arguably esp. the American population) are not automatons that you can just direct and they will follow orders when you first tell them to go left and then soon after tell "oops, actually you should've gone right".

Messaging needs to be consistent and err on the side of caution... this was the exact opposite of both of those things.

SARS-CoV-2 is actually not that unusual – the mRNA COVID vaccines that have been developed are based on the spike protein that is common to all "coronaviruses" (hence the name) and was previously isolated from SARS-CoV-1 (i.e. SARS). At the very least we knew it was a coronavirus early on, so there is no reason you wouldn't assume it was respiratory in nature, just like SARS was.

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by simonh on Saturday December 19, 2020 @03:07PM (#25480720)
We knew it was respiratory right from the start, but that doesn’t mean the virus load on small droplets is enough to cause transmission. There’s an awful lot more to it than that. As for credibility, suppose they had recommended everyone wear masks and it turned out to have no appreciable effect. What consequences would that have had, especially amongst those claiming the whole thing was a scare?
Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by fastball on Sunday December 20, 2020 @12:39AM (#25484135)
Honesty is always the best policy?

> This is a coronavirus, just as SARS was before it. This one seems both more lethal and more contagious than SARS, so we are recommending everyone wears a face-mask (even one you've made yourself) when you go to any public place until we understand more about the virus.

etc. etc. etc.

Not "no need to wear a face mask".

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by simonh on Sunday December 20, 2020 @08:37AM (#25486116)
Is slicing the context off his statements honest? Fauci did not just say there was no need. He was very specific and clear that he didn't have enough evidence to recommend it.
Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by fastball on Sunday December 20, 2020 @12:03PM (#25487657)
Again, a competent public health official would err on the side of caution while simultaneously being honest about it.
Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by varjag on Saturday December 19, 2020 @01:18PM (#25479659)
No, masks were mandated for health personnel dealing with COVID from day one. It was simply a lot of bad faith/ascientific messaging by WHO and national authorities early on.

This also to a large extent fuelled the anti-makser movement you have trouble reigning in now. Absolutely moronic.

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by pell on Saturday December 19, 2020 @01:58PM (#25480066)
The anti-masker movement would have happened anyway. There's no logical consistency there which is very apparent when you listen to their "arguments".
Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by varjag on Saturday December 19, 2020 @02:10PM (#25480194)
It would have certainly happened. It could also never have reached such a magnitude had health authorities not proclaimed for 3 months that masks are the new facehuggers.
Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by tertius on Saturday December 19, 2020 @02:35PM (#25480412)
Yes, except Fauci was against masks because of fake science, I mean because of supply. I.e He lied. (And has admitted it was because of supply).

https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire...

And most anti-maskers are against it because of government overreach. Unrelated to science.

A third party has emerged. The "we'll believe and parrot anything because it's what we're told".

They act in the following realm (whether they are aware or not): Cotton/cloth masks don't work. But it qualifies as a mask so checkbox! Moral superiority is on my side whether science is or not doesn't matter.

Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’ by tertius on Saturday December 19, 2020 @02:31PM (#25480378)
PPE was recommended for people dealing with Covid positive.

Fauci lied (and admitted to it) that masks weren't effective and suggested that the average person should not wear them.

To be fair, I heard the whole medical community here (I'm in one of the largest medical centers in the world) laugh and scoff at normal people wearing masks (because they weren't trained and it isn't effective).

And now we have no N95 for the general public and idiotic cloth masks (that don't work).

So it turns out they weren't far off I their scoffing... But for the wrong reasons.

Now we see them (and other anto-science) normals flip and ignore the data on bad masks. "Something is better than nothing". False sense of security and just more lies and moral superiority.