4 ms·
> All of those things were based on evidence of the time, and then they updated their stance as they got new evidence. If the evidence is weak they shouldn't m
by jdsully 6y ago
> All of those things were based on evidence of the time, and then they updated their stance as they got new evidence.
If the evidence is weak they shouldn't make a pronouncement or say "we don't know". The public recognizes these people as experts and when the stance changes so quickly it gives the impression they don't know what they are doing.
How is the public supposed to differentiate between whether the current CDC message is a solid fact or something based on weak evidence that might change tomorrow? Sometimes its better to just say nothing.
- eightysixfour 6y agoMaybe you should go read some CDC statements because they definitely indicate their level of confidence when they communicate. > We do not recommend at this time... > There is no evidence to support... There is plenty of blame to go around which is valid, so let’s actually place the correct blame where it is due. For what this thread is complaining about, the blame falls on the media for their reporting and on the people for not reading the details.