9 ms·

> “People have prevention fatigue,” Goldman told me. “They’re exhausted by all the information we’re throwing at them. We have to communicate priorities clearly

> “People have prevention fatigue,” Goldman told me. “They’re exhausted by all the information we’re throwing at them. We have to communicate priorities clearly; otherwise, they’ll be overloaded.” This was the best quote from the article for me. In my experience as a casual news watcher, the messaging about the virus has finally unified into a simple, easy to digest one in the last month (masks help, continue to social distance, etc.). But for the first few months of this all the articles about Covid particles living on every surface for weeks and then the even more nonsensical stories about pets getting Covid thinned out the whole message so much that I empathize with people who didn't take it seriously.

umanwizard 6y ago
For what it’s worth, pets really can get covid. Especially cats. That’s not a nonsensical story; it’s a fact. Other than that, I agree with the main thrust of your post.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Facts can be nonsensical in context if they are sufficiently misleading or irrelevant.
- thephyber 6y ago
  It's a little bit oversimplified, but technically true. > For what it’s worth, pets really can get covid. Especially cats. That’s not a nonsensical story; it’s a fact. The CDC reports[1]: > A small number of pets worldwide, including cats and dogs, have been reported to be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, mostly after close contact with people with COVID-19. Cornell School of Vet Medicine says: > Very importantly, there is currently NO EVIDENCE that SARS-CoV-2 can be passed from cats to people, so there is no need for owners to do anything that would endanger the welfare of their cats (i.e. relinquish to a shelter or abandon them) even if a cat is diagnosed with COVID-19.[2] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/pets.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/... [2] https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institutes/cornell-feline-health-center/coronavirus-update/frequently-asked-questions-covid-19-and-feline-health https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institut...
  - gojomo 6y ago
    'NO EVIDENCE' is no comfort with regard to any emerging & understudied phenomenon. It's no stretch to think that if a cat got Covid-19 from a human or other animal, & then show symptoms and tests positive – & thus is throwing off fresh viruses – it can pass it on. It's a mammal; it exhales; it sneezes & spits & drools. This hand-wavy reassurance from Cornell is the same kind of bullshit we got with "no evidence" of aerosol transmission. (Yes, that now seem the main risk.) Or "no evidence" community masking helps. (It obviously does.). Or most infamously, WHO's credulous relaying of lies from China that there was "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" in mid-January (https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavirus-tweet-was-to-appease-china-guardian-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavi...), when there was growing community transmission inside & outside of China, & the CCP had already mobilized behind-the-scenes for that fact.
    - thephyber 6y ago
      You seem to be conflating "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence" (sorry for using Rumsfeldian terms). Saying there is "no clear evidence of X" is very different from saying "there is very clear evidence of (not X)". The former expresses lots of uncertainty and makes no affirmative declaration; the latter does the converse. And you seem to have strange expectations. On one hand you acknowledge it is an "emerging & understudied phenomenon", but on the other you expect the WHO to prove by mid-January (2.5 weeks after the first observed pneumonia cases) that the Chinese-supplied information was wrong (when there were almost no cases outside of China). Take the Cornell statement for what it is: a statement at a point in time. I gave you a link to the document and it has a timestamp. Understand whether it makes an affirmative declaration or whether it is simply expressing uncertainty. Also be prepared to jettison old information if new info comes out to disprove the old. You seem to already be willing to throw out statements of the WHO and FDA and CDC. Maybe you should go back and look at the nuance of the statements and whether they were clarified later.
      - gojomo 6y ago
        I'm not conflating anything, but institutions like WHO and now Cornell who use this "NO EVIDENCE" construction to put people at ease on unsettled questions are relying on the fact that it sounds like "we're experts & we say it's not happening" to laypeople, and that people don't need to do anything until there is evidence. Re-read your source. They follow the emphasized 'NO EVIDENCE' with the phrase "there is no need to do anything". They answer many questions but finally at the bottom suggest nothing more than "owners wash their hands before and after interacting with their cats and litter boxes" - before again repeating the hypnotic, "no evidence" claim. But as a smart person, what's your guess on whether it will ever be shown that cats can transmit Covid-19 to humans? Isn't it highly likely to be eventually demonstrated, given what we know so far? After all, how did the cat get it? If the cat tests positive, isn't it almost certainly shedding viruses? Aren't those viruses likely in the same exhaled aerosols that cause human-to-human infections? Don't many cats like to lick or nuzzle people's hands & faces? If by basic understanding of the underlying processes, such transmission is likely – just not yet proven – is Cornell giving responsible advice? 'No evidence' is not just a "statement at a point in time" from Cornell. It's a mantra repeated six times in Cornell's FAQ, twice in all-caps for emphasis, always with the intent of putting people at ease, never paired with any analysis of the liklihood it just hasn't bee proven yet. Why don't they also say, "There's NO EVIDENCE that cats can't transmit Covid-19 to humans," which is equally true? If you had an over-65 obese diabetic relative, with cats, and one of the cats had respiratory symptoms, and tested positive for Covid-19, would you give your relative the advice, "Cornell & the CDC say all you can do is wash your hands more"? Or would that advice be just as fatal as WHO etc assuring people "no evidence" of human-to-human transmission existed at a date when it was WHO's primary job to know better? Or there was "no evidence" of aerosol transmission? Or "no evidence" community-masking was helpful?
- chrisjarvis 6y ago
  When the hysteria of "your dog is gonna get coronavirus too!" is spread on national news it dilutes the messaging to wear masks and social distance. It's a fact but arguably irrelevant in context.
- cortic 6y ago
  >pets really can get covid The issue i have with statements like this is that they convey a lot of false information; Within the general public definition of 'get covid' is 'dangerously contagious'. So unless you change that definition most pets can't get covid; As in most pets, either the viral load is so low they couldn't spread it or it manifests as a gastrointestinal disease and so wouldn't be contagious unless you eat the animal. I see this often, people not being sensitive enough to the common definition of important words, or worse, purposely misusing words knowing the common definition will mislead people into thinking stories are more sensational and important than they are.
ibejoeb 6y ago
I really couldn't disagree more with the notion that the messaging is unified. No science supports masking for the general population. New Zealand, which is touted as the gold standard (however ridiculous a comparison to anything else it might be) doesn't mask and advises against it: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-use-face-masks-community https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/... (individual sources here https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/review_of_science_and_policy_around_face_masks_and_covid-19-15may2020.pdf https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/revi...) Scandinavia can't agree on policies. Americans are physically fighting each other over it, in probably the funniest overt display of criminal obedience. It was fomites, so don't touch anything, and don't touch your face. Now there are no fomites, and definitely put a dirty rag on your face at all times. I'd go back to 9/11 over this cluster fuck in a heartbeat.
- vore 6y ago
  New Zealand is not really the best example here given they have no community transmission: I can understand different scenarios having different recommendations.
- darkerside 6y ago
  That link doesn't advise against mask wearing. I'd recommend you revise your summary or indicate where in the article you are reading that. > They are therefore not a substitute for basic hygiene measures and physical distancing, where possible and practical. That was the strongest wording "against" that I saw. And that is the typical "no evidence" disclaimer, not an evidence of no proof or evidence of harm. Your post is misleading. It takes a bulletin from a country where COVID had been essentially eliminated, and implied that it's guidelines are appropriate for others where infection is rampant.
  - ibejoeb 6y ago
    It's all contained in the sources provided in the footnotes of the page: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/review_of_science_and_policy_around_face_masks_and_covid-19-15may2020.pdf https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/revi... But, listen, if you have better information, I'm all ears. The whole point is to be directed by science, and right now, you're not going to find hard science, i.e., RCTs, to support the prevailing policies.
thephyber 6y ago
I found the Governor Cuomo daily presentations mildly useful, but would have preferred if they were more succinct. All of the others (White House, local news, cable news, most newspaper coverage) I could have lived without. The problem is that attention has become Tragedy of the Commons and no news organization wants to be the one that didn't get some eyeballs for their advertisers when people crave COVID information and certainty.
mistermann 6y ago
> This was the best quote from the article for me. In my experience as a casual news watcher, the messaging about the virus has finally unified into a simple, easy to digest one in the last month (masks help, continue to social distance, etc.). But for the first few months of this all the articles about Covid particles living on every surface for weeks and then the even more nonsensical stories about pets getting Covid thinned out the whole message so much that I empathize with people who didn't take it seriously. The news reporting (and even some statements from authoritative bodies) on this has been not just bad, but I believe harmful. Months of "facts" reported in an over-confident manner, and subsequently discovered to be wrong, provides great soil for growing conspiracy theories, or just general mistrust throughout the public. Considering the facts seem to be finally coalescing somewhat, is there a single authoritative (and well advertised) resource where USA residents can go to get a summary of the current guidelines and facts (preferably with supporting evidence, uncertainties fully disclosed), written in a form that people will actually read? EDIT: Others are mentioning more screwups below, such as only the media focusing on reporting total infections. I've had the same complaint (the odd way a lot of the data is reported) even reading reports on the CDC website. Some people don't believe that this obviously flawed approach to informing people accurately is purely due to incompetence.

umanwizard 6y ago

For what it’s worth, pets really can get covid. Especially cats. That’s not a nonsensical story; it’s a fact. Other than that, I agree with the main thrust of your post.

darkerside 6y ago
Facts can be nonsensical in context if they are sufficiently misleading or irrelevant.
thephyber 6y ago
It's a little bit oversimplified, but technically true. > For what it’s worth, pets really can get covid. Especially cats. That’s not a nonsensical story; it’s a fact. The CDC reports[1]: > A small number of pets worldwide, including cats and dogs, have been reported to be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, mostly after close contact with people with COVID-19. Cornell School of Vet Medicine says: > Very importantly, there is currently NO EVIDENCE that SARS-CoV-2 can be passed from cats to people, so there is no need for owners to do anything that would endanger the welfare of their cats (i.e. relinquish to a shelter or abandon them) even if a cat is diagnosed with COVID-19.[2] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/pets.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/... [2] https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institutes/cornell-feline-health-center/coronavirus-update/frequently-asked-questions-covid-19-and-feline-health https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institut...
- gojomo 6y ago
  'NO EVIDENCE' is no comfort with regard to any emerging & understudied phenomenon. It's no stretch to think that if a cat got Covid-19 from a human or other animal, & then show symptoms and tests positive – & thus is throwing off fresh viruses – it can pass it on. It's a mammal; it exhales; it sneezes & spits & drools. This hand-wavy reassurance from Cornell is the same kind of bullshit we got with "no evidence" of aerosol transmission. (Yes, that now seem the main risk.) Or "no evidence" community masking helps. (It obviously does.). Or most infamously, WHO's credulous relaying of lies from China that there was "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" in mid-January (https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavirus-tweet-was-to-appease-china-guardian-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavi...), when there was growing community transmission inside & outside of China, & the CCP had already mobilized behind-the-scenes for that fact.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    You seem to be conflating "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence" (sorry for using Rumsfeldian terms). Saying there is "no clear evidence of X" is very different from saying "there is very clear evidence of (not X)". The former expresses lots of uncertainty and makes no affirmative declaration; the latter does the converse. And you seem to have strange expectations. On one hand you acknowledge it is an "emerging & understudied phenomenon", but on the other you expect the WHO to prove by mid-January (2.5 weeks after the first observed pneumonia cases) that the Chinese-supplied information was wrong (when there were almost no cases outside of China). Take the Cornell statement for what it is: a statement at a point in time. I gave you a link to the document and it has a timestamp. Understand whether it makes an affirmative declaration or whether it is simply expressing uncertainty. Also be prepared to jettison old information if new info comes out to disprove the old. You seem to already be willing to throw out statements of the WHO and FDA and CDC. Maybe you should go back and look at the nuance of the statements and whether they were clarified later.
    - gojomo 6y ago
      I'm not conflating anything, but institutions like WHO and now Cornell who use this "NO EVIDENCE" construction to put people at ease on unsettled questions are relying on the fact that it sounds like "we're experts & we say it's not happening" to laypeople, and that people don't need to do anything until there is evidence. Re-read your source. They follow the emphasized 'NO EVIDENCE' with the phrase "there is no need to do anything". They answer many questions but finally at the bottom suggest nothing more than "owners wash their hands before and after interacting with their cats and litter boxes" - before again repeating the hypnotic, "no evidence" claim. But as a smart person, what's your guess on whether it will ever be shown that cats can transmit Covid-19 to humans? Isn't it highly likely to be eventually demonstrated, given what we know so far? After all, how did the cat get it? If the cat tests positive, isn't it almost certainly shedding viruses? Aren't those viruses likely in the same exhaled aerosols that cause human-to-human infections? Don't many cats like to lick or nuzzle people's hands & faces? If by basic understanding of the underlying processes, such transmission is likely – just not yet proven – is Cornell giving responsible advice? 'No evidence' is not just a "statement at a point in time" from Cornell. It's a mantra repeated six times in Cornell's FAQ, twice in all-caps for emphasis, always with the intent of putting people at ease, never paired with any analysis of the liklihood it just hasn't bee proven yet. Why don't they also say, "There's NO EVIDENCE that cats can't transmit Covid-19 to humans," which is equally true? If you had an over-65 obese diabetic relative, with cats, and one of the cats had respiratory symptoms, and tested positive for Covid-19, would you give your relative the advice, "Cornell & the CDC say all you can do is wash your hands more"? Or would that advice be just as fatal as WHO etc assuring people "no evidence" of human-to-human transmission existed at a date when it was WHO's primary job to know better? Or there was "no evidence" of aerosol transmission? Or "no evidence" community-masking was helpful?
chrisjarvis 6y ago
When the hysteria of "your dog is gonna get coronavirus too!" is spread on national news it dilutes the messaging to wear masks and social distance. It's a fact but arguably irrelevant in context.
cortic 6y ago
>pets really can get covid The issue i have with statements like this is that they convey a lot of false information; Within the general public definition of 'get covid' is 'dangerously contagious'. So unless you change that definition most pets can't get covid; As in most pets, either the viral load is so low they couldn't spread it or it manifests as a gastrointestinal disease and so wouldn't be contagious unless you eat the animal. I see this often, people not being sensitive enough to the common definition of important words, or worse, purposely misusing words knowing the common definition will mislead people into thinking stories are more sensational and important than they are.

ibejoeb 6y ago

I really couldn't disagree more with the notion that the messaging is unified. No science supports masking for the general population. New Zealand, which is touted as the gold standard (however ridiculous a comparison to anything else it might be) doesn't mask and advises against it: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-advice-general-public/covid-19-use-face-masks-community https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/... (individual sources here https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/review_of_science_and_policy_around_face_masks_and_covid-19-15may2020.pdf https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/revi...) Scandinavia can't agree on policies. Americans are physically fighting each other over it, in probably the funniest overt display of criminal obedience. It was fomites, so don't touch anything, and don't touch your face. Now there are no fomites, and definitely put a dirty rag on your face at all times. I'd go back to 9/11 over this cluster fuck in a heartbeat.

vore 6y ago
New Zealand is not really the best example here given they have no community transmission: I can understand different scenarios having different recommendations.
darkerside 6y ago
That link doesn't advise against mask wearing. I'd recommend you revise your summary or indicate where in the article you are reading that. > They are therefore not a substitute for basic hygiene measures and physical distancing, where possible and practical. That was the strongest wording "against" that I saw. And that is the typical "no evidence" disclaimer, not an evidence of no proof or evidence of harm. Your post is misleading. It takes a bulletin from a country where COVID had been essentially eliminated, and implied that it's guidelines are appropriate for others where infection is rampant.
- ibejoeb 6y ago
  It's all contained in the sources provided in the footnotes of the page: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/review_of_science_and_policy_around_face_masks_and_covid-19-15may2020.pdf https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/revi... But, listen, if you have better information, I'm all ears. The whole point is to be directed by science, and right now, you're not going to find hard science, i.e., RCTs, to support the prevailing policies.

thephyber 6y ago

I found the Governor Cuomo daily presentations mildly useful, but would have preferred if they were more succinct. All of the others (White House, local news, cable news, most newspaper coverage) I could have lived without. The problem is that attention has become Tragedy of the Commons and no news organization wants to be the one that didn't get some eyeballs for their advertisers when people crave COVID information and certainty.

mistermann 6y ago

> This was the best quote from the article for me. In my experience as a casual news watcher, the messaging about the virus has finally unified into a simple, easy to digest one in the last month (masks help, continue to social distance, etc.). But for the first few months of this all the articles about Covid particles living on every surface for weeks and then the even more nonsensical stories about pets getting Covid thinned out the whole message so much that I empathize with people who didn't take it seriously. The news reporting (and even some statements from authoritative bodies) on this has been not just bad, but I believe harmful. Months of "facts" reported in an over-confident manner, and subsequently discovered to be wrong, provides great soil for growing conspiracy theories, or just general mistrust throughout the public. Considering the facts seem to be finally coalescing somewhat, is there a single authoritative (and well advertised) resource where USA residents can go to get a summary of the current guidelines and facts (preferably with supporting evidence, uncertainties fully disclosed), written in a form that people will actually read? EDIT: Others are mentioning more screwups below, such as only the media focusing on reporting total infections. I've had the same complaint (the odd way a lot of the data is reported) even reading reports on the CDC website. Some people don't believe that this obviously flawed approach to informing people accurately is purely due to incompetence.