4 ms·

> But that's still a lot better than governments shutting down businesses without any real data or science to back up their decisions There's strong evidence h

> But that's still a lot better than governments shutting down businesses without any real data or science to back up their decisions There's strong evidence hard lockdowns lower the spread of the virus. See, for example, the correlation of lockdowns and cases in France. Allowing people to make their own choices doesn't work to deal with a pandemic because a very small subset of the population can cause the vast majority of cases, negating any personal effort made by the rest. The argument isn't that institutions are perfect and never make mistakes (or politicians), but rather that overall they've taken reasonable measures to deal with the current situation. > To be fair, the CDC hasn't done a lot of public communication either The CDC (and the FDA) have published tons of documents about recommendations, vaccine efficacy, etc. > Masks are bad--no wait, masks are good! Lockdowns are bad--no wait, lockdowns are essential! As the pandemic progresses, we learn new things about it and adjust. This is exactly what you should expect from your institutions: give you the best info available at the time. This is the full quote: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” In April, the CDC (which, as I said, _does_ do public communication) changed this recommendation to instead push wearing masks https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... Remember that initially it was not clear that Covid was highly airborne. At the time, folks were recommending disinfecting groceries. This doesn't mean the advice at the time was bad, that's hindsight bias.

pdonis 6y ago
> overall they've taken reasonable measures to deal with the current situation Once more, evidently you and I have been living on different planets for the past year. > As the pandemic progresses, we learn new things about it and adjust. That would be fine if that's what happened. But it isn't. The guidance had nothing to do with getting more information, and everything to do with trying to manipulate people into doing what the "experts" wanted them to do by misinforming them. The mask quote you give is a perfect example: there was good reason to be walking around with a mask (my wife and I started doing that around the end of February--and social distancing and all the other common sense precautions that any responsible adult should be taking when there's a pandemic, no matter what any so-called "experts" say). No protection is perfect (even an N95 is not perfect), but a mask is a lot better than nothing (even if not all virus particles are kept out, drastically reducing how many get into your upper respiratory tract makes a huge difference). But no, our nanny state "experts" were afraid we might touch our face so they lied to us. (They were also afraid health care providers would run short of PPE. But if governments are going to be authoritarian, they can just put themselves at the front of the line for however much PPE the health care providers need, without having to lie or manipulate anybody.)
- potatoz2 6y ago
  > Once more, evidently you and I have been living on different planets for the past year. I wish you would detail what exactly you disagree with instead of replying with quips like these. > my wife and I started doing that around the end of February--and social distancing and all the other common sense precautions that any responsible adult should be taking when there's a pandemic, no matter what any so-called "experts" say Did you also stop touching all surfaces/disinfecting your phone, groceries, etc.? If so, then that decision turned out to be pointless. If not, you had no reason not to at the time since we didn't know if surfaces, air, or other vectors were most responsible for infection. Social distancing was highlighted very early on. I think you're judging decisions made then with hindsight bias.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I wish you would detail what exactly you disagree with instead of replying with quips like these. If I tried to detail everything, it would be pages and pages. I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that things which you take to be obvious facts, aren't. If you ask "which things", my short answer is, as far as I can tell, pretty much anything you believe that isn't based on something you saw with your own eyes or checked in detail yourself is questionable, because there are no reliable sources of information in our society. (That means none--on any side of any debate. That's what makes the current situation so difficult.) > Did you also stop touching all surfaces/disinfecting your phone, groceries, etc.? No. We did wear gloves (medical grade vinyl or nitrile) when doing things like grocery shopping, and washed our hands after handling those items. > If not, you had no reason not to at the time What drove our general actions was our own common sense and background knowledge about how viruses generally propagate. We were looking at whatever data was available, but we didn't give it a lot of weight because we knew the virus was new and anything said about it was tentative, and also because of the general unreliability of information sources that I mentioned above. > Social distancing was highlighted very early on. Not as early as we started doing it. It wasn't until we had been doing it for several weeks that we saw it being emphasized in the media, and it wasn't until a week or two after that that we saw it actually becoming common in our area. We also watched spring break happening in various places with no signs of precautions or social distancing, several weeks after we had started doing those things.

pdonis 6y ago

> overall they've taken reasonable measures to deal with the current situation Once more, evidently you and I have been living on different planets for the past year. > As the pandemic progresses, we learn new things about it and adjust. That would be fine if that's what happened. But it isn't. The guidance had nothing to do with getting more information, and everything to do with trying to manipulate people into doing what the "experts" wanted them to do by misinforming them. The mask quote you give is a perfect example: there was good reason to be walking around with a mask (my wife and I started doing that around the end of February--and social distancing and all the other common sense precautions that any responsible adult should be taking when there's a pandemic, no matter what any so-called "experts" say). No protection is perfect (even an N95 is not perfect), but a mask is a lot better than nothing (even if not all virus particles are kept out, drastically reducing how many get into your upper respiratory tract makes a huge difference). But no, our nanny state "experts" were afraid we might touch our face so they lied to us. (They were also afraid health care providers would run short of PPE. But if governments are going to be authoritarian, they can just put themselves at the front of the line for however much PPE the health care providers need, without having to lie or manipulate anybody.)

potatoz2 6y ago
> Once more, evidently you and I have been living on different planets for the past year. I wish you would detail what exactly you disagree with instead of replying with quips like these. > my wife and I started doing that around the end of February--and social distancing and all the other common sense precautions that any responsible adult should be taking when there's a pandemic, no matter what any so-called "experts" say Did you also stop touching all surfaces/disinfecting your phone, groceries, etc.? If so, then that decision turned out to be pointless. If not, you had no reason not to at the time since we didn't know if surfaces, air, or other vectors were most responsible for infection. Social distancing was highlighted very early on. I think you're judging decisions made then with hindsight bias.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I wish you would detail what exactly you disagree with instead of replying with quips like these. If I tried to detail everything, it would be pages and pages. I'm simply drawing attention to the fact that things which you take to be obvious facts, aren't. If you ask "which things", my short answer is, as far as I can tell, pretty much anything you believe that isn't based on something you saw with your own eyes or checked in detail yourself is questionable, because there are no reliable sources of information in our society. (That means none--on any side of any debate. That's what makes the current situation so difficult.) > Did you also stop touching all surfaces/disinfecting your phone, groceries, etc.? No. We did wear gloves (medical grade vinyl or nitrile) when doing things like grocery shopping, and washed our hands after handling those items. > If not, you had no reason not to at the time What drove our general actions was our own common sense and background knowledge about how viruses generally propagate. We were looking at whatever data was available, but we didn't give it a lot of weight because we knew the virus was new and anything said about it was tentative, and also because of the general unreliability of information sources that I mentioned above. > Social distancing was highlighted very early on. Not as early as we started doing it. It wasn't until we had been doing it for several weeks that we saw it being emphasized in the media, and it wasn't until a week or two after that that we saw it actually becoming common in our area. We also watched spring break happening in various places with no signs of precautions or social distancing, several weeks after we had started doing those things.