For me it was the masks. The masks were my tipping point.
At some point at the beginning of the pandemic they said that the disease was totally not airborne and that masks were useless. I remember vividly president Macron (a person that I respected before that) very serious in TV explaining to all the citizens of the republic that we should not buy nor wear masks. That we should clean our doorknobs and vegetables, wash our hands, and avoid touching our face. If we did that we would be safe, no need of masks.
Just two weeks later, he appeared again on TV announcing that wearing masks was now mandatory. That it was the most important thing to do. Without any correction on the previous statement. Without any explanation of whether the previous statement was wrong due to ignorance or intentionally (to save masks for health personnel). Not only he was a liar "for our own good", he acted as if people hadn't even a two-week memory! An utmost lack of respect.
I found it extremely offensive that a democratically elected president treats the citizens who elected him as little children, and not as adults. I don't believe any of the stupid conspiracy theories, but I have more sympathy for the conspiracists that follow these theories (I am compassionate to them) than for the evil lying politicians.
This encouraged examples like; people walking up to you in the supermarket explaining why you should take your mask off. It lead to some number of deaths, probably 10s of thousands in the UK as this policy lasted for six months and it undoubtedly was part of the reason care-homes were hit as hard in the first wave.
Now here we are a year later, and no one has been held accountable, no talk of this in the media, no anger. Not only were we treated like children, we were treated like children by incompetent heartless leaders that got a lot of us killed, and there seems to be no corrective process for this.
I don't think so. There seemed to be genuine uncertainty early on in the pandemic about whether masks would be helpful. We didn't know if the virus was airborne and there was a question about whether the masks would actually be helpful. For example, the masks could have had very low benefit but encouraged people to touch their face more.
Whitty in March 2020: "In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that. The only people we do sometimes use masks for are people who have got an infection and that is to help them to stop it spreading around."
I think this was a mistake: common sense suggests that they should have had some effect (and the evidence ended up supporting this). But I don't see any evidence for it being deliberate misinformation to avoid pressure on mask sourcing.
I also think that this one mistake should not be held up as the key problem in the pandemic. Public health information in the UK has generally been very good. Most of the missteps in the pandemic were from poor governmental decisions.
> no talk of this in the media
This is absolutely not true. I've seen this issue discussed ad nauseum.
Among the civilian population, perhaps. Not among politicians and health officials. At least Fauci, WHO, and Finnish health authorities HAVE come out afterwards and admitted that they lied about masks to conserve them for health personnel.
This is not true. I think Fauci etc. admitted that a reason masks weren't recommended early on was partly to conserve masks. That's quite different from the claim that they actively lied about them.
- Surgeon General, Feb 29, 2020
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Previous Surgeon General Jerome Adams is not the same person as Fauci.
I'm not in the USA, but looks like your surgeon general in Feb 2020 was not an ideal choice for the post. He sounds like a political Trump appointee.
Even so, the full tweet read:
"Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
...so it sounds like he was quite upfront about the idea that mask use was partly being discouraged to avoid pressure on sourcing masks for medical professionals.
In grandparent post you stated "There seemed to be genuine uncertainty early on in the pandemic about whether masks would be helpful".
In this post you are stating "mask use was partly being discouraged to avoid pressure on sourcing masks for medical professionals".
So which is it? Were they recommending against mask use because masks are not helpful, or were they recommending against mask use because masks are so helpful that we actually need to conserve them for medical professionals? Which is it?
If you're going to lie, at least make up a consistent story.
Masks are clearly going to be more effective when used by trained personnel in a clinical setting. For example, removing masks using gloves and disinfecting hands before touching faces. There isn't necessarily a contradiction here in thinking masks could be effective for medical personnel but not the public. Although, as I have already said, I think they made a mistake.
> If you're going to lie
If you don't have the wit or politeness to enter a discussion without throwing insults around please find another forum to argue on.
The inability of public health officials to simply say “we got X wrong” when they pivot massively erodes trust; ironically admitting “we were wrong; we know better now” would have done the opposite: it would have increased trust.
You state that masks "weren't recommended" which indeed would be different from "recommending not to wear masks". However, Fauci didn't merely abstain from recommending masks, he actively recommended people not to wear masks. Yes, he actively lied about it, and he has openly admitted that he has lied about it. Now please stop spreading misinformation.
Pandemics are such a common trope that Hollywood has made multiple (bad) movies revolving around them. Yet it appears we were unprepared for the basics.
What Fauci said or why isn't important. The question we should be asking is: Why were in that position to begin with? We were warned - time and again - and each time that warning was ignored.
& what happened to the Pandemic Playbook created by the 44th presidential administration? It was completely discarded by the 45th presidential administration.
What proceeded to happen during the 45th presidential administration? A somewhat predicted pandemic. It’s too bad they didn’t have a playbook that told them step by step how to properly handle it…
Where were the stockpiles of appropriate equipment? Or did the playbook say such things would fall out of the sky, like manna from heaven?
Fact: The 45th didn't discard them. In fact, the gov bought masks from Facebook and (I think) Google who did have a stockpile (but evidently not for pandemic purposes).
You're loving the playbook but missing the fact that some basic and necessary execution never happened.
Feel free to use the search engine of your choice to search “US PPE Stockpile” & read any of the multiple credible articles that come up as the first results of the search. As it was known nearly immediately after COVID started, the stockpiles were mostly depleted - and what wasn’t depleted was mostly expired. This is why you saw pictures and videos of nurses demonstrating their supplied smocks disintegrating into dust as they put them on.
The 45th administration had the responsibility to refresh the stockpiles, and they purposely chose not to. If you’re unaware of this, your snark is a bit funny as you appear to be the one suckered.
Secondly: As for what the government bought after they remembered the stockpile is screwed, also for the small bit of it that was still useable.
“The notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile. It’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use,” - Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, 45th Admin
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/4/3/21207140/jared-kus...
So much to the point that at least one state had to buy shipments of PPE in secrecy & then guard the distribution of said shipments with their National Guard. Everything not done in secrecy or guarded was being “appropriated” by the Feds, for reasons not hard to imagine given the statement of the aforementioned advisor.
There’s a lot more to it, but I digress.
Somebody here is indeed a sucker - but I do not believe it is I.
I won't dispute Trump exaggerated. That's a given.
On the other hand, all I can find are articles on the stockpile being depleted and that even if full there were numerous warning about full not being enough.
So again, a simple question: Why? And why isn't anyone willing to ask why?
We knew this was coming. We even got a warning. And still not even close. But no accountability??
Google “Trump administration stockpile budget cuts”
and stop attempting to discuss in good faith with you, who apparently really wants to be right on the internet when they’re completely wrong.
We were clearly - and across multiple administrations - under prepared...why? And why is no one (read: media) seriously asking why?
That is, again for example, even an undepleted stockpile wasn't going to be enough.
Dear Uncle Sam - Where were the stockpiles of appropriate supplies?
That's it. We can move on to other discussions but let's start with the basics first.
And at least in the US, their are 1000s of people receiving good money to take that warning seriously. And they still failed.
Trust is what our entire society is built upon and the foundation of science.
They also have the dual jobs of keep people alive and keeping society functioning.
The logical flaw then was that telling people to just wear masks if they're infected doesn't work very well if highly contagious people don't know they're infected, which turned out to be the case. I can see where it might have taken awhile to figure that out, but still the lack of transparency about how these decisions were made and the resulting credibility deficit is a problem.
They're actually no good at anything. You can compare places that were right next to each other and which differed only in mask mandates, or look at the times mask mandates were introduced and removed. Cases don't shift.
See the graphs here, where the numbers from different nearby regions are overlayed on the same graph with the times of mask mandate rule changes:
https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/every-comparison-shows-masks-a...
That's why when you dig into the citations of a paper claiming masks work, you invariably find some invalid evidence, like they'll be citing model outputs as evidence of real-world effects, or they'll cite a study whose CI includes zero, etc.
For example, mask mandates tend to get imposed when cases are rising, and removed when they fall. To say they have no effect on cases is to confuse cause and effect.
The conspiracy site you link to has no interest in looking at the data dispassionately. There's a reason why we have data science and peer review to investigate these things.
There are lots of cases where mask mandates were not added and removed at the times you claim, which were geographically next to each other, and in which there was no observed difference. There are lots of cases where mask mandates were added and the trend of the case graph didn't change at all. These are evidence against the hypothesis that masks work which was, note, the standard belief prior to mid-2020. That's why public health officials all said mass masking doesn't work. It's because it doesn't.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone can throw some graphs together on a blog. Why should we trust him over papers that have been peer reviewed by experts in their fields?
It's a series of cherry-picked comparisons. Why is he comparing Germany to Sweden? They don't even share a border. Why not UK to France or Peru to Ecuador? Did he pick those countries because it happens to support his theory?
We don't have to wonder, because he admits it: "Perhaps the clearest example of the delusional political obsession with pretending masks matter is found in Southern California." Oh, great. So why are you showing us the "clearest examples"? Why not a comparison of the other places which aren't as "clear"? How can we determine if it's statistically significant if it's not a systematic study?
There are lots of other problems with that page. He's a crank.
Why compare Germany and Sweden - because their case curves are virtually the same despite wildly different levels of masking. Because providing counter-examples is how you disprove a hypothesis.
Remember that he doesn't actually need to do lots of statistical analysis of this because mask theory is a total one. It doesn't come with caveats like "sometimes in some countries it works and others it doesn't for <reasons>", it doesn't even come with effectiveness numbers. It's just masks=less COVID. To disprove a theory this simple you only need one counter example. But this guy shows lots. He makes a big pile of graphs not because it's actually necessary to prove the point, but to try and ram it home to people who are in denial about it. There isn't just one counter example, there are a huge number of counter examples, and any one of them is sufficient to invalidate "masks = universal and effective COVID countermeasure" as a belief. That actually is science!
If mask mandate proponents were proposing a very subtle and complex effect where it was expected that sometimes there'd be no impact etc, then yes, the counter-argument would need to be correspondingly complex in return. That isn't the case here though.
I remember this, at the time we knew people who were infected (and infectious) could take more than 10 days to show symptoms, and if they didn't wear a mask they could infect hundreds. We also knew that anything less than an N95 wasn't designed to protect the wearer anyway (though as it turns out it does), but rather everyone else from the wearer. So it was really disingenuous of them to suggest your mask doesn't protect you, as they knew its everyone else's mask than protects you..
By the time it hit Italy we knew it was airborne, even if not by official measure, out government and the WHO kept this BS up for months after that.
Maybe we watch different media, as i have seen nothing about this issue. A few articles online, hidden away, nothing proportional to the seriousness of the issue.
Just like anything, reality is a bit more complicated. I don't think there was any genuine uncertainty about whether masks were helpful or effective, as we already knew that at minimum COVID-19 was droplet spread due to it being so similar to SARS. The issue was whether or not the public could correctly and effectively use masks, because wearing them properly is important as improper wear can actually /increase/ exposure to capture viral particles on the mask material.
But rather than just be honest and tell people the truth, they chose to spread simple lies.
Is there solid evidence anywhere that masks are important one way or the other? While it is plausible that a mask could prevent an infection in an encounter, I've not yet seen anyone waving something conclusive around that masks prevent infections over the course of a pandemic.
I've managed to avoid the coronavirus for 2 years now and as far as I can tell the future still has me getting COVID in it. I'm still not clear what role the mask is meant to play in that forecast.
They knew this after sars. It's not hard to find the evidence from after then.
It's just a nice visual way to make people feel safer against the thing they're told to fear.
So if wearing masks pushes your infection date out to when vaccines are available (and you get vaccinated), it is not unreasonable to assume the inverse (that not wearing masks led to earlier infections and thus worse outcomes, and death)
Unfortunately many parts of this paper are beyond me, but this study does appear to find that community level masking has an impact, but it is a study that used actual communities and tracked compliance (and impact of different interventions on encouraging making)
> We used high-quality surgical masks that had had a filtration efficiency of 95% [standard deviation (SD) = 1%]; this is substantially higher than the filtration efficiency of the cloth masks we designed, which had a filtration efficiency of 37% (SD = 6%). These cloth masks had substantially higher filtration than common commercial 3-ply cotton masks, but lower than hybrid masks that use materials not commonly available for community members in low-resource settings (54).
The key result:
> We find clear evidence that surgical masks lead to a relative reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence of 11.1% (aPR = 0.89 [0.78,1.00]; control prevalence = 0.81%; treatment prevalence = 0.72%). Although the point estimates for cloth masks suggests that they reduce risk, the confidence limits include both an effect size similar to surgical masks and no effect at all. (aPR = 0.94 [0.78,1.10]; control: 0.67%; treatment: 0.61%).
It's a shame that even with such a large study, the phenomenon is so noisy that we can't get a strong signal here. But i think the takeaway is that masking has an effect, but it is rather small.
There's a lot more detail in the paper. Including this gem:
> We find no evidence that any of our village-level or household-level treatments, other than mask color, impacted mask-wearing. For mask-color, we see marginally significant differences, small in magnitude. In surgical mask villages, blue masks were more likely to be observed than green (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.03, [-0.00,0.06]), and in cloth mask villages, red more likely than purple (adjusted percentage point difference = -0.02, [-0.04,-0.00]). Text message reminders, incentives for village-leaders, or explicit commitment signals explain little of the observed increase in mask-wearing. Compared to self-protection messaging alone, altruistic messaging had no greater impact on mask-wearing, and twice-weekly text messages and a verbal commitment had no significant effects.
I think a key target was spreading out the infections so that hospitals weren't overwhelmed. And delaying infections until vaccines were available. Imagine if everyone in the country had gotten covid over the first half of 2020.
I attended FOSDEM in Brussels in 2020 right at the beginning of February, after COVID was identified, but before the big push of lockdowns in March. I had to transit through Atlanta to get to EU, and had a long layover so left the airport to visit a friend. While I was in the airport and flying, I wore a P100 rated half-mask respirator with cartridge filters the entire time. Recently the TSA and airlines had been experimenting (and now fully implemented) facial recognition for identity verification in US airports rather than handing the TSA your ID. It's supposed to be optional, but I got delayed 20 minutes in an otherwise empty line re-entering Atlanta because the TSA agent on duty wanted to argue with me to take my mask off and how masks were ineffective, and that's what the doctors/CDC (based in Atlanta) said, and how arrogant I was that I thought I knew more than the CDC. I kept my mask on. I didn't get COVID, and in fact still haven't had it at this point (although I'll likely get Omicron) by following common sense precautions and being vaccinated.
The telling people not to wear masks or buy masks was one of the biggest things for me that immediately let me know that the public was being lied to and manipulated. I've made a point of keeping up on the latest research and sharing what I know with family and friends directly, including preparatory advice. I already had a "pandemic prep kit" in my prep supplies, which had plenty of respirators, and I shared them with family and friends early on when they were hard to get. To me, it's utterly obscene how often even /basic/ easily verifiable facts were lied about to the public, masks especially.
Now that this has been politicized as an issue in the US, it's just made it harder. Here I am knowing the government lied consistently throughout the pandemic to everyone and that many of the "precautions" were nonsense, but the entire time advocating masks and vaccines... nobody on any political aisle likes truthful information since their selection of "truth" cannot match with reality.
If they do that with sources in a relatively easy and popular language, I cannot imagine what they do with complex Asian ones.
I think a more fair take would be that most countries did not take COVID19(in particular, the early variants which were much more dangerous) seriously enough until there was a major source of infections in their country, at which point it was obviously too late.
There are some exceptions(in particular, New Zealand, which is in the Anglo world that you malign), but I think in general it is a true statement.
> in particular, New Zealand, which is in the Anglo world that you malign
NZ and Australia largely benefited from their geographical and economic periphery to achieve the level of safety that they did. By the time the virus got there in critical numbers, it had already been taken seriously in the anglosphere as a whole because of the UK debacle. I'm not saying their lockdowns didn't help (they very much did), but it's easier to enforce controls on entrance in far-flung corners of the world rather than around the backbone of the world economy.
Several Italian doctors criticised the Italian guidelines (in particular about giving corticosteroids) but they were silenced.
We also don't know the real numbers of Asian countries, do you trust the numbers given by the CCP?
No less, or more than for the USA.
For example, Italy was reporting zero cases when the US and UK weren't, and exponential growth is really slow at the start - you don'tt just go from zero cases to hospital collapse in an instant. The only way this makes sense is if Italy was failing to test people hospitalized with Covid symptoms even more totally and completely than even the US, which had an official policy of not doing so for patients without travel from China yet still managed to pick up unlinked cases at a much earlier stage. Which means the information on how Italy ended up this way was useless and not applicable to other countries, and all the hospitalisation and death rates were worthless too - and remember, no other country in the world had Covid spread from China result in the kind of outbreak that Italy experienced, their major outbreaks all seem to have come from Italy. So other countries had no way of knowing whether to expect something more like Italy's experiences or their own prior experiences and also no way of knowing what if anything could prevent this.
The information on how to treat Covid patients from Italy also seems to have been hot garbage. Like, their information and treatment policies around stuff like intubation and ventilators which every other country based their policies on likely outright killed a bunch of people. On the other hand, the UK found the first effective treatment for patients with Covid that was actually confirmed to substantially reduce their risk of dying - yet somehow, you don't hear the press arguing that other countries whose outbreaks happened after the UK's should've been able to do better because they had the UK to learn from like they do with Italy. What they have been doing is comparing the total number of deaths with other European countries (rather than per-capita figures) to falsely make it look like Covid was more deadly here than everywhere else.
A guy in charge of the job safety for national police was demoted because he decided to buy and give masks to policeman.
Media affiliated with the government was actively trying to ridicule everyone, calling people alarmists, fascists or whatever insult they came up with. That includes science divulgators, medical personnel, etc. Pretty ugly.
Then, suddenly, the 9th of March we had a very worrysome situation and yadda yadda.
Not to mention the mask thing.
I mean, how in the hell are you going to trust any of this any more? I know I don't. Now if something else happens you have to be very careful, they may be lying to you, or having a combination of lies and stupidity.
I guess this is what happens when the selection of elites is optimized for marketing purposes.
As I recall, one of the first things that happened in response to the pandemic was loads of our foreign correspondents either not getting sent in the first place, or getting pulled out.
For something like an earthquake or tsunami, there would be reporters on the ground filing in-person reports within days. Somewhat understandably, nobody wanted to send reporters to outbreak hotspots.
It wasn't until further into the pandemic that journalists decided interviewing randos from their living rooms over skype was good enough.
I wasn't happy with the restrictions but they never went as crazy as the rest of Europe. Overall I'm glad we had Boris and not someone from the other side who would have been even more draconian - even if having a real conservative would have been better.
(To be clear, I'm not qualified to say which is a better approach, I'm just curious about your comparison.)
While at the time it seemed pretty clear to me that masks had a high probability of being helpful, there was a dearth of research that would support this conclusion - indeed the very limited research conducted on public mask usage did not seem to support it.
On top of this, I believe a major contributing factor was that many medical experts were used to very stringent mask protocols, and did not seem to consider the obvious differences between a hospital setting (where Covid may be rife) and every day life where it is a medium-to-low risk event, and carried over their belief that anything less than their stringent (and unrealistic protocols for the public) would render them useless.
I saw many regular doctors expressing this belief on Twitter at the time, as well as explaining how mask fitting was a laborious process, and that without this the mask would be useless, or that if you touched the mask while taking it on or off it would be worse than useless.
So, I think it is entirely possible that experts were giving leaders and journalists their honest assessment that masks were useless for the public - no doubt more exuberantly than they would have done if masks were plentiful, but not necessarily dishonestly.
I don't disagree that public messaging is highly manipulated in general, but I think it is more plausible that this particular case was fabricated by flaws in the decision process rather than dishonesty.
I have often observed discussion on how this might have been a convenient political move in the beginning when the EU had no way to get masks except for waiting on Chinese orders. But that's the realm of conspiracy again.
I don't remember this from Macron, but rather from Véran (Health Minister), but I could be wrong. anyway, at the time this was a more than reasonable request.
Because the very first persons we had to protect were health professionals, and we didn't have enough masks for everyone. (We didn't even have enough for health professionals)
> If we did that we would be safe, no need of masks.
I'll need to check again what he said, because I really don't remember that part, and I remember that the "L’usage du masque en population générale n’est pas utile" made sense to me, precisely because we had to protect health professionals first, which contradicts that part.
So that makes it ok for them to lie? I do not agree. And the trust is lost as a result.
They should have explained that we should prioritize masks for health care professionals if that was their reasoning.
I would actually say that at the time, it was counter-productive for the general public to wear masks, because it prevented protecting health professionals.
I agree there is a bit of conundrum that "not useful" is not exactly in between "counter-productive" and "useful", and here you could argue that the "not useful" in Véran's mouth meant "doesn't protect". I definitely wouldn't blame you for that, and yes I'm being very nice to them for my interpretation.
The reality is that had they said "yes masks are super important, but it's even more important to give them to health professionals", we'd have seen what we saw with hydroxychloroquine (which is that people who actually needed it couldn't get it), but 10 times worse. Could they have twisted their words 7 times more in their mouth before saying it, so that it's not factually a lie? Yes sure.
It is not before June that they started admitting that the IFR was way below 1%, when the first serology studies started showing up (though I came to believe that this number is meaningless, you need to look at IFR by age).
Sam Harris invited Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease MD from John Hopkins in early April 2020, and his estimate at that time was around 0.5%. So it's not like the information wasn't there.
14 people out of 2666 died, hence 0.5% death rate (because I don't agree with the estimate that only 700 individuals got it, I saw no good reason not to consider everyone got it, but even without that, it'd give low 2%)
A retrospective on who said what on the matter of death rates would be extremely interesting to pick the ""good"" medias and the ""bad"" ones
In the beginning, testing was very sparse and unavailable so it's hard to blame anyone for just looking at the obvious infections. It took a while until we even understood that the majority of cases are asymptomatic and very mild.
The 1% IFR is trueish across all age groups but not so much when you look at specific age groups. You can clearly see it in current German data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105512/coronavirus-covi...
You might have an asysmptomatic child with a 0.003% IFR and hand them to your grandparents for caretaking, with a quite high chance of putting them into the ICU if infected. So it's not so easy to deal with like a cold.
Also, variants might change the distribution and death isn't the only negative outcome of a COVID infection. It's a systemic disease affecting all organs which will put a strain on the health systems for a long time to come, especially if it becomes endemic and people will just keep reinfecting themselves year after year. It's too shortsighted to just dismiss it as a cold just because cases are often very mild.
The US is becoming more and more the outlier in over-hyped fear and infantalism vs a world moving on.
Before covid we knew masks were effective. Doctors obviously wear them during surgery. masks are important when dealing with HIV and such.
So when Fauci and others came out and said masks didn't work. They were knowingly lying. Worse yet, there were instructions on how to turn a tshirts in masks as well as how to produce hand santizers. They took these down.
The correct decision would have been to say exactly the fear, 'we have supply issues, we recommend cutting up old tshirts.' Not only does it prevent spread, it solves all problems.
Then we went a week later and they talked about 'new normal' and '2 weeks to flatten the curve'. Their lying didn't stop. They lost any smidgen of trust they had. Then they came out with emergency approvals to use experimental medicine for something that clearly isn't a vaccine and they are lying and calling it a vaccine? Sorry but this amount of lying should make literally everyone question their motives.
No wonder there are conspiracy theories all over the place. News are disinformation, you can't trust anything you read and uncertainty is at an all time high. People no longer trust these authorities but they still need to make sense of the world so they start looking for patterns. Sometimes they see things where there's nothing and sometimes they're right. I have a lot of sympathy for these people.
People are certainly reusing them, they keep touching their face to adjust them, they don't respect distancing rules because they have a mask on, a lot of masks are not filtering enough.
On top of this they're annoying.
With the risk of covid being so low, masks are too much of a hassle for me to bother and I wear them only to avoid fines from the totalitarian regime I live in (and I'm certainly not changing them or buying any, I'm still using some I managed to get for free).
Conspiracy theorists almost always operate in negative space and are unable to stand on their own.
Ah! This one is actually a story of "the lesser of two evils".
You can't really tell people to buy masks where there is none available, and you can't really tell there is nothing to do unless you want to put every one in panic mode. You can't really trust people to act rationally in the presence of a new and unexpected situation that nobody trained for, and you can't tell them that you're also as unprepared as they are for that.
So, handle the situation like you want, there's no way you aren't damaging something. I guess it was easier to take a slight (to medium for some government staff, Olivier Véran) reputation hit and announce it to the press via your health minister, than risk a state-wide panic meanwhile you are fixing the mask situation (remember the stockpile was left in a degraded state and wasn't usable).
If you think of it, the only reason why getting vaccinated is not yet mandatory is because of the next elections in May. You wouldn't risk to alienate ~1/6 voters (again, they are the most motivated ones and they refused to get a shot despite not being allowed in restaurants), if it's not national-security-like important. So I suspect it will become mandatory either when we crossed the threshold where it's really dangerous (500.000 covid case per day, we're currently at 350.000), or after the elections, in june. Whichever comes first. With our current trajectory, you could expect the president or the prime minister to announce it in about two weeks, despite having said differently in previous announcements.
Not a reputation hit. A credibility hit. Essentially 100% of what they say now is lies to my ears. If their policy is to lie to me "for the global good", this is the most rational position.
I'd have preferred if they had told the truth as they knew it (the disease is airborne, masks help you to avoid infect people, please leave all masks to health personnel, people who hoard masks will be severely punished).
This is perfectly understandable, however, in this situation, the truth or any version of it weren't available. If you tell everyone that masks are the best way to avoid getting infected, but there is none available, then you are creating and invoking the worst case scenario immediately: No masks available for anyone, No idea when you will get shipments, and 60M panicked citizens to manage.
The vaccine is close to mandatory since June 2021, and is now becoming even more so, that with the negative tests not even counting any more.
I don't really by the election arguments: people who aren't vaccinated already don't vote Macron for the most part, they're already alienated. I'm pretty sure Macron doesn't want their vote, he wants scapegoats.
I also heard there are constitutional hurdles in making the vaccine mandatory (because it's not officially out of test phase yet), as well as that pesky thing about not compensating people who suffer side effects (aside from having regular health care like everyone else).
Your predictions still make sense, though. I'm not sure they're probable, but they're definitely plausible.
Well, there could have been a third route - Buy out the entire supply, then announce that masks help, but they do the most good on the faces of doctors and nurses so the supply of N95 masks has been reserved for them by the government; and those who can sew their own cloth masks are encouraged to do so.
The decisions were made in a hurry, and our politicians aren't doctors or scientists, so some mistakes are to be expected. But there's no denying the early stop-buying-masks announcements were a mistake IMHO.
Also, in the first case, did he express it very categorically, or did he say something like "to the best of our knowledge, the virus..."?
I’m so surprised and disappointed this absolute bullshit shows up on HN.
Maybe he fucked up sooner than that, thus not being worthy of respect at that point. But I'm not interested in politics at all so I missed it.
That's terrible, and doubly so when you apply it to politicians.
In my opinion, not giving respect to fellow humans by default is the terrible choice.
>In my opinion, not giving respect to fellow humans by default is the terrible choice.
Not every walking person deserves to be called a "fellow human".
I am _much_ less comfortable by similar behaviour in scientists. Science is built on trust and a pursuit of truth, lying is anathema. This is true both within scientific debate, and from the outside, when scientists share their perspective it should be a counter balance to the more flexible interpretation of truth provided elsewhere.
Tldr: Polititians can and should play politics (politics _is_ mostly white lies, or just lies, depending on your cynicism level). Scientists should not, it hurts the reputation of science as a whole.
And what happens when the scientist and politician is in a hybrid role, like Fauci? Folks don’t trust Fauci because credibility, in general, has been harmed. Q conspiracy theorists thrive in a world of distrust. Chronic distrust of politicians is too high a price to pay to justify the use of the occasional manipulation.
Whether it would have actually been worse or better I can't really guess, but I do see your point that it might have worked and definitely wouldn't have weakened public trust the way the dishonest approach did, so yeah, I'll concede that was probably a bad call.
It’s very common to see “super cuts“ of the media pulling a complete 180 on positions. Those are super compelling to the public, who are generally in alignment in hating hypocrisy.
Plenty of people own scarves and handkerchiefs, and for a while people were making their own masks at home. So the initial message could have been that any face covering helps and that N95 masks need to be reserved for healthcare workers and responders.
A politician manipulating the public is an attack on democracy, since democracy relies on having an informed demos. Condoning such behaviour shows how much faith a person has in (true) democracy.
I do have faith in representative democracy to do _approximately_ the right thing most of the time, or at least minimise how bad the bad results will be.
In other words, I think people are better at deciding who to trust to run the country than they are at actually running the country. Given that, it should be no surprise that I also think there will be situations where the person trusted to run the country will realise that telling the public the whole truth will be a bad idea, because they are better at interpretting that truth than the public is.
Lying to the public is not (imo) a slippery slope that inevitably makes anyone who goes down it a monster. Polititians can be something other than perfectly honest and actually satan, and in fact they must be. I think a perfectly honest polititian would be a bad thing overall, even beyond the fact that their career wouldn't last very long.
Where on that scale they should be is in the end in the hands of the public, via our democratic vote. Certainly I don't support constant lies and hiding of things the public needs to know. But that isn't what we're discussing here, we're discussing a single lie used for a good cause (though I admit it was probably not the best solution to the problem, it was at least a logical concept: convince people who need masks less to not panic buy masks, leading to more masks for people who need them more).
Sadly, this not unpopular.
Even when they tell the technical truth, it’s so full of deception to sell ads I just can’t.
I opened the first 15 results on Google and every single one mentions the number of people as proportion of the overall company size. The vast majority are in paragraph 1 or 2.
Could you link to the article (hopefully from a reputable source) that doesn't mention the company size?
Yes, it's only 1% of a company, which is not a lot. But 700 people being fired is quite a lot, if we consider that this affects more than these 700 people. I'm sure a lot of these 700 people have a family at home.
In your example I don't really see why that is proof that they use the total amount for ad-driven clickbait. There are more than enough better examples for this, I think.
So was the quarantine window wrong all along? Or is it changing now because we really need workers?
The real soon here is a complete erosion of trust in institutions. I think many folks greatly underestimate the extent of the harm caused by this loss of trust.
I'm not really bothered about the true origin of the virus, except inasmuchas scientists lying about their true beliefs is incredibly damaging to public confidence, and energises conspiranoids. Lying about the benefits of mask-wearing was bloody stupid.
I no longer pay attention to statistics about infection rates and fatality rates. They are presented in the press without context (e.g. "It's a Monday, so results are skewed because some clinics report numbers for the whole weekend"). We get numbers with spurious precision. How can they know it's 251 cases, and not 249? Where are the error-bars?
It's really annoying; if you want to understand what's happening, you really do have to "do your own research". I feel ashamed to have just typed that, because that's a phrase mainly used by antivaxxers and QAnon conspiraloons, people who generally don't have the critical-thinking capacity to distinguish their left hand from their right, let alone evaluate research.
Thanks, but not mine. At one time I used to read Indymedia, an open-posting forum. There were a lot of pretty conspiraloonatic posts, often about 9/11 and "chemtrails". This was the early noughties. The word's been around a long time.
- As individuals you kind of know what they know what their biases are
- You can follow all sides of the debates
- It's quicker by about 12 hours than the newspapers
You get to see the biases in the news when it breaks on twitter first and then you get the editorialised dumbed down version written up by journalists a few hours after. Obviously you have to be a bit selective about who you follow.
By the way, what do you think of the tone of the other reply to my comment? (Did you perhaps see the now-deleted curse word at the end?)
Do you really not see the connection?
But you don't really need to take US intel's word for any of it. The grant application where the scientists literally propose modifying spike proteins of bat coronaviruses in the Wuhan Lab leaked from the DoD and you can read it for yourself:
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-prop...
https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/oVt6gT0yBx4eQXSeuN...
"A GRANT PROPOSAL written by the U.S.-based nonprofit the EcoHealth Alliance and submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, provides evidence that the group was working — or at least planning to work — on several risky areas of research. Among the scientific tasks the group described in its proposal, which was rejected by DARPA, was the creation of full-length infectious clones of bat SARS-related coronaviruses and the insertion of a tiny part of the virus known as a “proteolytic cleavage site” into bat coronaviruses. Of particular interest was a type of cleavage site able to interact with furin, an enzyme expressed in human cells."
Note that the names on this grant proposal were the same scientists that were executing this coverup and the ones responsible for the obvious lie that it couldn't have come from the lab.
The idea that it wasn't created by scientists requires either a lack of information or tremendous naivety to continue holding onto. You can literally read their proposals to deliberately engineer viruses to be more infectious to humans and - even crazier - to deliberately release these viruses into bat caves and then spray airborne vaccines over self-same bats.
Also, the science itself doesn't really work as advertised. There is this book titled "Betrayers of Truth" [1] which I reluctantly recommend on that. The authors are sometimes a bit too harsh (e.g. about Millikan), but I think they have a point overall.
The gutter press has to sensationalise stories to sell the newspapers and get viewers. It's a race to the bottom. A quarter not vaccinated!!! vs 75% vaccinated so far. Guess which one they run with? Let's not forget cherry-picking the science too, and that the media is a massive echo chamber.
There's no problem with science, but like any other industry, it has its own language, which isn't accessible to the average person, so someone has to simplify it. Journalists should not be that 'someone'.
I’m guessing you prefer your scientists to be absolutely right at the beginning right?
> So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?
> "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."
[0] https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire...
The right just took some sound bites and excerpted the rest of the discussion to “prove” that Fauci was lying, while everyone else was rolling their eyes, and still are.
People hear the things that support the story they want to believe, and then ignore everything else that doesn’t support their preferred narrative. You don’t need a PhD in psych to realize that.
The whole thing is also complicated by the fact that science on surgical masks etc. wasn't (and isn't) that clear. During the 2009 H1N1 flu, CDC also recommended against face masks for ordinary people. See this SSC article for more on that. [2]
[1] e.g. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-don...
[2]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t... (Scott, like you, is also sometimes a bit too generous :-))
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fauci-said-masks-not-reall...
Some trivially obtainable evidence from mainstream outlets, for the silent downvoters trying to memory hole these facts.
>Dr. Fauci On GOP Criticism: ‘Attacks On Me, Quite Frankly, Are Attacks On Science’
whereas I'm more into
Feynman: The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth'.
War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Fauci Is Science.
So when I see this article cites Viscount Ridley, the climate change denier, I pretty much put it in the same category of bullshit as all of that stuff
This is assuming I've not spotted its in the Telegraph first, which is enough to know its almost certainly lies and misrepresention.
The fact that you dislike the Telegraph because it's conservative is irrelevant. The evidence here is absolute proof that scientists, as a group, systematically lied to and manipulated both the public and governments for two years. Their goal was simply to ensure people didn't stop blindly trusting them, which might cause them to lose funding and power. There was no higher purpose yet nobody in the field of virology stepped up and pointed this out publicly. Many of them knew and were saying so in private emails, but - and this is critical - none of them spoke out. Not one.
Climatology is in reality not better. The ClimateGate emails have largely been forgotten now but it was also very clear in those that they were manipulating the peer review process, manipulating the temperature records and more in order to get the outcomes they wanted. They admitted it quite openly, at the time even Guardian writers like Monbiot were shocked by it.
But that means people must be able to propose ill-founded hypotheses. They'll be proposing tons of them as they try to separate fact from fiction!
In an idealized world you might do this in the open. Unfortunately, media outlets and social media including hacker news will take things out of context, as both the telegraph and this very discussion is doing right now. That's simply not a valid interpretation of the participants opinions and their confidence in them. Selectively quoting "experts" while they're still forming their interpretation of the data is misleading, because it removed the whole point of expertise; the reason you trust such expert opinion is because it is informed, and the social contract here is that experts should refrain from misusing their authority when they're not sure of their conclusions. And most generally do that to maintain their reputation.
So what to make of this? I think this could simply be part of a normal healthy debate; one that never saw the light of day simply because (a) evidence was lacking, and alternative explanations (e.g. of that furin cleavage site) emerged, and (b) given the lack of evidence and the unfortunate impossibility to express a nuanced opinion and have it be interpreted by the public correctly due to the charged atmosphere at the time, many chose simply not to speak.
That's not to say there aren't a few people that probably acted in bad faith, but the vast majority looks perfectly reasonable to me. And if we want to avoid this in the future, we need to have an atmosphere where nuance is expressible; otherwise you simply can't expect people to open up about potentially explosive hypotheses that they themselves don't even really support but cannot rule out; the damage to their reputation and to society would be too large.
The mistakes that were made need correction. Don't advertise diversity, live up to it.
Additionally, I think you should consider the fact that facebook simply is not a great venue for discussing such things. They cannot tell fraud from fact, don't have a process for doing so, and instead have social dynamics that encourage irrational conspiracies. What exactly should have been done? I get that they certainly ban the wrong things at time, but the real problem here is the platform, which kind of makes it inevitable that either that happens, or that misinformation spreads like wildfire.
But really: the moment to allow a public discussion like that to come to it's own (unguided) conclusions is not in the initial chaos of uncertainty. The consequences of uninformed, unmoderated speculation running wild are still visible everywhere. On the one hand, mostly everybody accepts that healthy debate is a useful social tool, but on the other hand the current zeitgeist is one in which we've not socially learned to distinguish between the right to shout whatever we feel is truthy from the wisdom of relying on that to form public opinion.
Clearly, mistakes were made - but we need to consider the alternative to partially incorrect guidance by experts, which is sometimes extremely dangerous widely and deeply held beliefs formed by social media echo chambers.
Hopefully future generations will have better habits when it comes to dealing with this kind of information overload, and a greater ability to put one's own suspicions in perspective relative to experts, but that's clearly not an easy task. We don't know who to trust, why to trust them; we do our own research, but poorly and with terribly limited resources; we trust others that appear to be like us without having a way to really judge how great their interpretations are nor to recognize which are flawed, and all this is spiced up by the fact that some of these beliefs about facts blur into deeply held moral axioms - which we as a society don't universally share, leading to easily exploitable deep divisions.
...so, while it's deeply unfortunate that your potentially valid observations were silenced, I'm not sure I really believe the alternative would have been better, on facebook.
On a personal level, I find this story to be more of a funny (tragic?) anecdote than a degrading violation of rights. What does it say about the direction our society is headed? Facebook is the only public forum where I (or any of most people) could have significant reach in this discussion.
Letter to the editor? Couldn't have gotten it published at the time. My Slack groups of highly-educated, economically powerful friends and acquaintances? Sure, and through those channels we all had access to much better curated information than any official channel. Friends and family? You bet. Local Reddit groups? Sure, all of the 30 people who read it.
This isn't only an issue regarding times of crisis. Access to precise information in matters big and small is increasingly filtered through similar mechanisms. Economic decisions, career advice, knowledge of how to best position oneself in the world and so on. All trends channel these advantages to a smaller and smaller elite that is capable of making sense of the world, where finding the useful truths in a sea of uncertain signals is increasingly difficult.
I'm not really suggesting a solution, rather pointing out that this is an insidious challenge with great potential to cause strife if we can't figure out a way to properly democratize it. It works well if you're really smart or well-connected. Not so much otherwise.
> this is a propaganda instrument
What exactly is this "propaganda instrument"? Just trying to latch on to what you're trying to suggest.
There might have been lies, distortions of the truth, misunderstandings, assumptions, ignorance, but "propaganda" implies some kind of motive and objective by a particular actor or set of actors.
With perhaps the exception of parties responsible hiding any remnants of the truth in order to avoid blame (aka a cover up), what was the motive/objective and by whom?
For me, the purpose of the lab in China and the possibility of a contagion leak makes complete sense with no conspiracy theories needed. Even the Chinese Government/CCPs response makes sense (not defending it, just obvious based on their track record).
I can imagine multiple ways in which the resulting pandemic could be used as an instrument to cause and inflict political harm in order benefit rivals or perhaps entire states and regimes. But the only way I can describe what has actually resulted is an all out frenzy and turmoil.
Speculation about motives is difficult, my most prominent idea is that a subset of scientists agreed it was better to craft a noble lie than to be transparent with their ideas. Repeating a lie often enough so that people believe it to be true is a law of propaganda.
> lies, distortions of the truth, misunderstandings, assumptions, ignorance
I don't see how a "distortion of the truth" has less requirements for a motive than propaganda. What do you believe was the motivation to distort the truth? If you have an idea I would gladly entertain it. I don't think "misunderstanding" fits the case where people were targeted for dissenting views.
> a contagion leak makes complete sense with no conspiracy theories needed
Yes indeed, this would not have needed any conspiracies at all, but we got one for political reasons as the "official" message was crafted to deny the possibility of a leak outright by a subset of the scientific community. For personal gratification or just to calm the public or any other reason is of secondary importance here. The fact remains that there were attempts to suppress such views.
> the resulting pandemic could be used as an instrument to cause and inflict political harm in order benefit rivals or perhaps entire states and regimes.
The problem is the lack of transparency and intentional lies, this is off topic.
If it was an accident, there must be consequences for research like this. Maybe it has to be disallowed, perhaps more security is needed. I can see how such measures might run counter to the interest of the group that came up with the idea to neglect that possibility. Just to make it very clear, that is speculation about a motive and is not substantiated. Substantiated was the lack of truthful information.
I think you're missing that the lack of access to facts was a willful manipulation of the geography the "debate" took place on, which shows just what an effective strategy it was.
There's nothing ill-founded, it was then and is now the most reasonable and plausible explanation for the outbreak. You can do the same back of the envelope calculation today that I did 2 years ago, and nothing has made it less valid:
1. There's 100 cities in PRC with >1 million inhabitants.
2. There's one (1) lab in PRC doing work on bat viruses.
The probability that the outbreak happened in the same city as the one with the lab by pure coincidnce is therefore about 1%.
That's not a proof, that's not a definite argument, that's just evaluating how plausible the hypothesis is. You can tweak the values to be more charitable if you want, say note that Wuhan is a large city and we shouldn't count smaller ones, or point out that there might be a few mor labs doing the same kind of work but with less prominence. That merely lowers the lab leak's plausibility to 50%. I.e very plausible.
But when you take specific bits of evidence out of the great soup surrounding this and highlight them, it's really easy to draw the wrong conclusions, or to get the feeling that this bit of evidence simply due to familiarity is more trustworthy than some other evidence. And we also have biases towards evidence we understand, which kind of makes sense, but is also a problem, as non-experts...
If we try to make a rough calculation from an unknowledgeable starting position, it might be more reasonable to say "just as likely to come from each 1M+ city as to come from each lab [of which there is one]". Then, if we didn't know the geographic origin, the lab probability is ~1% ( = 1/(100 cities + 1 lab)), but knowing the geographic start point you'd get 50%
P(this lab given Wuhan) = P(Wuhan given this lab) * P(lab) / P(Wuhan)
P(this lab given Wuhan) = 1 [this lab is in Wuhan!] * (1/101) / (2/101)
Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general.
It's easy to pontificate for a few hours, days, weeks even, and much harder many years and decades down the line for someone else to objectively evaluate the way you access media and say: "J decided to give up on X media after discovering the 'spell' and even decades later they stuck to their decision".
My money's on most people giving up these "major" decisions due to practical reasons or sheer boredom, somewhere down the line.
You could say that we almost want or need the lies.
Please remember that most people who belong to one of those groups truly want to get to truth and improve our knowledge and lives.
Epidemiology at least had the Great Barrington Declaration, it had Anders Tegnell. There were a tiny minority who spoke up. Where was the equivalent group for virology? The fact that these guys were lying and lying as a group had to be figured out by deep investigation and lawsuits by outsiders.
> Please remember that most people who belong to one of those groups truly want to get to truth and improve our knowledge and lives.
I no longer believe this.
Do they really not see the glaring irony there? They are creating the voices of conspiracy all on their own by hiding that information. They are the ones doing harm to science and international harmony.
This remoinds me of Climegate where cherry-picked phrases taken out of context were used to try and smear scientists. I'll wait to see the words in context.
This hasn't given me great confidence in the accuracy of the reporting for things that I don't have direct knowledge of.
Related to "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect", though I guess in this case the amnesia is replaced by a red-pill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
Many in here still regurgitate the same talking points I saw published then.
Good for you on getting in early. Crypto, as a concept, is extremely neat. It is a libertarians dream. It is an interesting movement, in this time of centralisation and consolidation of power.
Crypto, as a tool however, is a solution looking for a problem. A problem that most people do not have. The only reason that crypto is currently huge, is because it (currently) is a Make Money Fast scheme. Should crypto ever become a mainstream way of performing transactions, it will still have to abide by the rule of law, or risk becoming illegal.
If Bitcoin could develop and improve, all the while without being a ponzi-scheme, it would be great. And who knows, if POS ever worked out and we manage to transition the whole ecosystem, it may find some usecases in smaller applications. But as it is, POW is generating the CO2 of a large country, providing money to the wrong people (and I'm not talking about you), and preparing financial crash.
If you're sitting on a pile of bitcoins since 2012, I understand your point of view. But I'm not convinced it's a net benefit to us all.
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/
If you would remove the dates and the prices, I would not be able to tell the age of most of these headlines.
My opinion is something like:
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will not die, but long term the current ones will become fringe techs except for some of their aspects which will be merged into the mainstream. It's too early to know which aspects will remain and which will go away. Plus at this point we cannot evaluate the beneficial/negative aspect of cryptocurrencies as a whole, but the general impression leans towards negative (a ton of negative externalities and 99% of the time used for raw speculation and we could have used those resources for things more beneficial to humankind).
Once government officials and scientists gaslight us about what they think they should, how does one know they wouldn't for anything at all they decide to?
These people have done a huge disservice to society - and the harm in increase of conspiracy theorists is likely helped by their contribution in hiding this information.