People are getting pissed that public policy and messaging is changing WITHOUT new data.

In the past week:

- The CDC director acknowledged and downplayed the severity of omicron by stating the vast majority of hospitalized patients have multiple comorbidities. This has been true since the start of the pandemic, but is only being addressed now.

- CDC and several states are making the distinction between "hospitalized from" and "hospitalized with" COVID. This has also been a point of contention for the past 2 years. For some reason we're changing that now. Your guess is as good as mine, but I'd bet it has to do with the omicron spike making govt. middle manager KPI graphs look bad.

If I've learned anything through this pandemic, it's that people are always much more enraged than I could have imagined. It seems like everyone's looking for something new to focus all their rage onto.

The way CDC and media swing between "this Greek letter is fine; no mask is fine" and "everyone get your (n+1)th dose real quick" is just hilarious.

Public policy and science are not the same thing. Public policy has a goal, science doesn't. If your goal were simply "stop human transmission of the virus", well science could help you come to a policy of exterminating all human life - it's scientifically provable that it's the best way to meet that goal.

"Trust the science" is a nonsense term. We're being asked to "Trust the policymakers". Why should we? Ok, so they're informed by science. But if the scientific consensus is obviously in rapid flux and can't be used to predict anything, then why should we trust the policies or their makers?

I don't object to policy changes in light of new data, but do object to policy made based on preliminary data, knowing full well that we don't understand everything yet, and then changing every few months or even more often, and just shouting "SCIENCE!" if anyone questions any of it.

In an emergent situation, you'll never understand all the data in time. Imagine a loved one that's hurt who calls you for help after a crash. You could spend time trying to figure out their symptoms and their feelings, probing them for more information to make an accurate decision so that you don't have to actually waste the time to go over to them physically. Or you could just go over immediately and potentially waste time when it turns out your loved one would have been just fine without you. Most people choose the latter.

There's a reason emergency services dispatchers have such a stressful job, they're making these decisions all the time based on very limited amounts of data. Unfortunately we're all living in a situation right now where we're making emergency decisions as new information emerges.

Wouldn't a closer analogy be a loved one has a crash, so you immediately force everyone else to wear driving masks to prevent crashes?

'we're all living in a situation right now where we're making emergency decisions...'

Not me, but you seem to be hooked on fear. May you find some peace in life.

> Not me, but you seem to be hooked on fear. May you find some peace in life.

This is an unnecessary insult. You could have left it with "I'm comfortable not treating this as an emergency situation." I'm not sure what you gained from this post. Hopefully you got the performative internet points you were looking for.

What's the alternative to setting policy on preliminary data? Are you proposing something like "government should never react to anything until 12 months have passed since it started happening." So something like COVID just cannot be responded to initially?

It has been nearly two years and government MSHA hasn't mandated anything to specifically change for workers. The inspectors did reduce the small group chats, which I suspect is going to be counter-productive for injury counts in the medium term. Someone senior in MSHA has big stones for not getting on the safety theater bandwagon like OSHA did.

It's not policy change that is the problem, the problem is that nobody can figure out what the current policy is because the CDC is bad at making announcements.

Furthermore, there is now widespread suspicion that the CDC's current recommendations are not based on science anymore: for example, the 5-day vs 10-day isolation period.

What's especially bad is the advice not to use tests after 5 days, followed a few days later by advice that tests are optional after 5 days -- everyone knows that advice would be different if there were not test shortages. That's not science, that's pragmatism, and that's fine and they ought to just say so, but the CDC continues to make the transparently false claim that their advice is based purely on science.

That really hurts the CDC's credibility -- now, when they make an announcement, we all have to ask ourselves whether it's truly based on science. Smart people of all political stripes now realize this. Even the liberal cable TV talking heads are attacking the CDC over this.

I think that sums it up pretty well: people would be more tolerant of the CDC changing their minds on things if it was clear how they arrived at their decisions in the first place and they say what data they base their decisions on and what the trade-offs are.

People will put up with just about anything if they think there's a good reason for it, but if instructions seem arbitrary then people tend to stop giving officials the benefit of the doubt.

Transparency can go along way towards maintaining public trust. I'd rather the CDC err on the side of over-sharing than the reverse.

The fact that recent science can be proven wrong after more data come out seems to be some sort of "gotcha!" for them.

"Science" can't be wrong, just the interpretation. And if the popular interpreters are frequently wrong, they should be called out.