Re:I Got a 'Mild' Breakthrough Case
by tablespoon on Monday September 13, 2021 @12:23AM
(#28507838)
> It started with masks. The studies that we had about masks really were not great, but they did a risk-reward calculation behind closed doors: worst case scenario, the surgical masks don't impact the spread and it changes nothing; best case scenario, we reduce community spread. The problem with this is that if they told the public that this was how they were thinking about the problem, they wouldn't get people wearing the masks, so they overstated their confidence in it when speaking to the public. A good amount of people truly believe that the science was clear. But it wasn't.
That's not how I remember it. IIRC, the CDC dragged their feet on recommending masking because of the same lack of explicit studies you cite and supply chain worries. Then once they did recommend masks, you have a much of people citing their "flip flop" as a reason not to trust them.
> It was obvious that this was going to be with us for the rest of our lives back all the way in April of last year (or earlier).
IIRC, no one knew shit in April 2020. Your statement feels like its heavily influenced by hindsight bias.
> We need to decide if we're okay with science agencies lying to us. Is their purpose to exact change on society, or is their purpose to do good science and tell us honest results? All of the confusion in this article stems from the misrepresentations they sell us.
I think you're confused. I'm not sure exactly who you're counting as "science agencies," but if it's the kind of agencies I'm thinking of, I wouldn't say their purpose is either to "exact change on society" or to "do good science and tell us honest results." Their purpose it to come up with public policy to solve actual problems in the face of rather severe uncertainty. Hopefully that based on good science (which may be psychology/sociology), but that's often not possible.
It's not "lying" to not share your exact level of pessimism/cynicism or to be unable to make statements about the future with the benefit of hindsight.
That's not how I remember it. IIRC, the CDC dragged their feet on recommending masking because of the same lack of explicit studies you cite and supply chain worries. Then once they did recommend masks, you have a much of people citing their "flip flop" as a reason not to trust them.
> It was obvious that this was going to be with us for the rest of our lives back all the way in April of last year (or earlier).
IIRC, no one knew shit in April 2020. Your statement feels like its heavily influenced by hindsight bias.
> We need to decide if we're okay with science agencies lying to us. Is their purpose to exact change on society, or is their purpose to do good science and tell us honest results? All of the confusion in this article stems from the misrepresentations they sell us.
I think you're confused. I'm not sure exactly who you're counting as "science agencies," but if it's the kind of agencies I'm thinking of, I wouldn't say their purpose is either to "exact change on society" or to "do good science and tell us honest results." Their purpose it to come up with public policy to solve actual problems in the face of rather severe uncertainty. Hopefully that based on good science (which may be psychology/sociology), but that's often not possible.
It's not "lying" to not share your exact level of pessimism/cynicism or to be unable to make statements about the future with the benefit of hindsight.