4 ms·

A healthy dose of distrust towards experts is necessary, because they're wrong all the time. What about the experts - including those at the CDC - that said CO

A healthy dose of distrust towards experts is necessary, because they're wrong all the time. What about the experts - including those at the CDC - that said COVID-19 was no worse than a flu? Are they no real experts, or are they just the wrong kind of expert? https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-lesser-threat-to-americans-than-flu-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-lesser-thr... "Trust the experts" is nothing but an argument from authority. You're likely going to trust whatever expert confirms what you already believe.

Retric 7y ago
It’s important to separate individual experts from the general belief of experts as a group on some topic. However, this is a different problem where understanding context of experts is the issue. Back when 5 known cases of COVID-19 where in the US, the risk on that specific day was lower from the virus than the flu for the average American. “immediate health risk” However, understanding that risks change over time is critical to understanding what was being poorly communicated by that piece.
AJ007 7y ago
This covid-19 debacle illustrated a big conflation with experts and authoritative bureaucracies. Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. All these differences matter an enormous amount. They don’t matter subtlety like missing the freeway exit and taking the next one. They matter like chopping your hand off instead of keeping it.
- ksk 7y ago
  >Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Do you have a rough timeline for 'well ahead'? From what I've read it was classified as zoonotic, because the staff in China who handled the initial cases weren't presenting, and the wet-market was the only causal link. That's when the WHO reported (mid/late Jan) that human-human transmission wasn't possible. >Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. But its not just "average people", its most people, including HN folks. On any expert topic, when you have no hands-on expertise, you apply "common sense", or read some articles, and then you're back to square one. Most scientific fields are advanced to the point where common sense doesn't get you very far. Not only that, there are a lot of professional explainers who muddy the waters by repeating things without understanding the nuances. I think its fine to say whatever, as long as its fine for me to ask "OK, but what makes your opinion worth something".
creato 7y ago
Here is what the CDC said in your reference: > Although the CDC considers this coronavirus (whose scientific name is 2019-nCoV) to be a serious public-health concern, the agency said in a statement Friday that "the immediate health risk from 2019-nCoV to the general American public is considered low at this time." Your paraphrasing of them is dramatically misrepresenting what they said, which I think is the real problem. "Experts" tend to hedge and use inconclusive language, because that is correct. Then journalists come along and confuse/misinterpret things a bit, but the real damage comes from people like you come on social media. The vast majority of people seem to only ever read these misunderstandings and misrepresentations from other social media users.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Here is what an expert in the field said, in my reference: „When we think about the relative danger of this new coronavirus and influenza, there’s just no comparison,“ William Schaffner, a vaccine expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told Kaiser Health News (KHN). „Coronavirus will be a blip on the horizon in comparison. The risk is trivial.“ I guess we can both agree it turned out not to be that small of a blip. > "Experts" tend to hedge and use inconclusive language, because that is correct. Well, clearly not all of them used inconclusive language. Furthermore, if your "expert opinion" is inconclusive and hedged against all possibilities, it may be honest, it may be correct, but it is also useless. Anybody with literally zero expertise on the topic could've told you that "Coronavirus is bad, but at this point in time we don't have a clue what is going on, nor do we know what is going to happen, so let's do nothing for now". That is, of course, paraphrasing the CDC and its experts.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Again you’re misinterpreting what was said, an incoming ICBM is a blip on the horizon. At the time it was a potential threat, which could become very real very quickly. Part of that was splitting up the actual quote into multiple pieces without the correct context, but that’s on the reporter not the expert.
  - creato 7y ago

Retric 7y ago

It’s important to separate individual experts from the general belief of experts as a group on some topic. However, this is a different problem where understanding context of experts is the issue. Back when 5 known cases of COVID-19 where in the US, the risk on that specific day was lower from the virus than the flu for the average American. “immediate health risk” However, understanding that risks change over time is critical to understanding what was being poorly communicated by that piece.

AJ007 7y ago

This covid-19 debacle illustrated a big conflation with experts and authoritative bureaucracies. Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. All these differences matter an enormous amount. They don’t matter subtlety like missing the freeway exit and taking the next one. They matter like chopping your hand off instead of keeping it.

ksk 7y ago
>Researchers, scientists, and people on the ground in China, Taiwan, and South Korea issued early warnings well ahead of the WHO, CDC, and FDA flip flopping on transmit-ability, masks, and testing. Do you have a rough timeline for 'well ahead'? From what I've read it was classified as zoonotic, because the staff in China who handled the initial cases weren't presenting, and the wet-market was the only causal link. That's when the WHO reported (mid/late Jan) that human-human transmission wasn't possible. >Unfortunately the average person can’t tell the difference between a researched investigative journalism piece in the New York Times and an opinion column in the New York Times. Most people can’t tell the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Many people can’t tell the difference between the Chicago Tribune and a random website that stole the Chicago Tribune’s layout. But its not just "average people", its most people, including HN folks. On any expert topic, when you have no hands-on expertise, you apply "common sense", or read some articles, and then you're back to square one. Most scientific fields are advanced to the point where common sense doesn't get you very far. Not only that, there are a lot of professional explainers who muddy the waters by repeating things without understanding the nuances. I think its fine to say whatever, as long as its fine for me to ask "OK, but what makes your opinion worth something".

creato 7y ago

Here is what the CDC said in your reference: > Although the CDC considers this coronavirus (whose scientific name is 2019-nCoV) to be a serious public-health concern, the agency said in a statement Friday that "the immediate health risk from 2019-nCoV to the general American public is considered low at this time." Your paraphrasing of them is dramatically misrepresenting what they said, which I think is the real problem. "Experts" tend to hedge and use inconclusive language, because that is correct. Then journalists come along and confuse/misinterpret things a bit, but the real damage comes from people like you come on social media. The vast majority of people seem to only ever read these misunderstandings and misrepresentations from other social media users.

gridlockd 7y ago
Here is what an expert in the field said, in my reference: „When we think about the relative danger of this new coronavirus and influenza, there’s just no comparison,“ William Schaffner, a vaccine expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told Kaiser Health News (KHN). „Coronavirus will be a blip on the horizon in comparison. The risk is trivial.“ I guess we can both agree it turned out not to be that small of a blip. > "Experts" tend to hedge and use inconclusive language, because that is correct. Well, clearly not all of them used inconclusive language. Furthermore, if your "expert opinion" is inconclusive and hedged against all possibilities, it may be honest, it may be correct, but it is also useless. Anybody with literally zero expertise on the topic could've told you that "Coronavirus is bad, but at this point in time we don't have a clue what is going on, nor do we know what is going to happen, so let's do nothing for now". That is, of course, paraphrasing the CDC and its experts.
- Retric 7y ago
  Again you’re misinterpreting what was said, an incoming ICBM is a blip on the horizon. At the time it was a potential threat, which could become very real very quickly. Part of that was splitting up the actual quote into multiple pieces without the correct context, but that’s on the reporter not the expert.
- creato 7y ago