4 ms·

You'll have to be a little more specific. Obviously no institution performed perfectly, but it was a novel situation.

bondarchuk 6y ago
The danger is that there's a big "we know better than you" component to it, which is used to justify hiding the truth. For example it might be true that the population in general would be better off if we save the masks for nurses. Then, the government should say "don't wear a mask, we need them for nurses". They should not say "don't wear a mask, they don't work". Also it might even be true that wearing masks reduces distancing, on average. Then, the government should say "wear a mask but pay attention that you don't stop distancing", and not "don't wear a mask, they don't work". The paternalistic PR-minded reasoning goes like 1) What do we want people to do? 2) How do we get them to do it? The answer to 2 should always be simply explaining the reasoning for 1, even if it would be a little less effective than making up some lie. In the long run this builds trust in the government, instead of reducing it leading to a total breakdown of compliance because they lie all the time. The most dangerous and insidious thing about this dynamic, IMHO, is that a certain type of smart or self-identified elite person will go along with it, because they, too, believe that you can't just tell the truth to the general public (of which they don't consider themselves a part of course).
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  To be clear here, the CDC first issued guidance for the general community to wear masks on 3 April 2020, so about 2 months after the U.S declared a public health emergency. Even at the time the CDC gave its guidance, the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak. Here is an extract from a systematic review of the published research from shortly after the CDC gave its guidance. > There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... So the CDC was faced with a situation where there was minimal evidence for the efficacy of the general public wearing masks and a severe shortage of PPE among medical personnel. In that context, they held back recommending that the general public wear masks. It wasn't really till May/June that evidence started mounting in support of the general use of masks amongst the public. So there was no conspiracy, just hard working people trying to do their best in a difficult situation. The world is much more dull than people like to believe.
  - cassalian 6y ago
    I tend to agree that the world generally is more dull than people like to believe. However, I'd say that mostly applies to people trying to make more ordinary events more extraordinary. But in the case of covid, we already have an extraordinary situation. I don't have any evidence that the CDC was deliberately withholding information (not to say it doesn't exist), but I do have evidence that medical leaders have felt it okay to lie to the public with regards to covid. > In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent... And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.” > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. > “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      I think this direct quote (from your article) best sums up his position: > “We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.” He's not lying, like the rest of us, he doesn't know. Especially, with the advent of the new variants. Also, it's odd you're pointing out him giving information during an on-the-record interview as evidence that he's lying.
      - cassalian 6y ago
        This is a lie of omission: > Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts... partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie): > Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Dr. Fauci believed that the real range was somewhere between 70 to 90 percent as you pointed out; however, he gave lower estimates to the public because he didn't believe the public was "ready to hear what he really thinks". So not only was he failing to correct pre-existing misconceptions, but he was actively spreading misconceptions about how much of the population he believed needed to be vaccinated. As such, he was lying by omission.
edejong 6y ago
No, it wasn't novel. History is full of prior examples of large scale outbreaks. Wide scale, highly detailed simulations have been performed over the years. Crisis managers have warned for decades that we were not prepared for the next pandemic. In addition, crises of different nature have similar structures. The readiness to deal with the structure of crises of different nature can be tested.
Consultant32452 6y ago
IMO the loss of credibility doesn't come from getting things wrong, but by blatant dishonest behavior. Here's two examples off the top of my head. The US Surgeon General, CDC, WHO, etc. got on national television and said masks don't work when what they appear to have really believed is that masks DO work, but they wanted to reserve them for healthcare workers. The cost of this dishonesty is that when they flipped the script people were less likely to comply/believe them. And any recommendations they give going forward has to go through the "Are they sacrificing me for the greater good" filter. When the question of whether COVID is lab generated is brought up, the relevant institutions consistently respond in a dishonest manner. They pretend that "lab generated" means gene editing and they vociferously deny the gene editing hypothesis. But that's not what is being asked. What's being asked about is gain of function research. These things are categorically different than something like "I think if they closed the borders sooner we would've had less impact." That might fall under "not performed perfectly" and I'm willing to grant a lot of leeway for that category of error under emergency circumstances.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  > The US Surgeon General, CDC, WHO, etc. got on national television and said masks don't work when what they appear to have really believed is that masks DO work, but they wanted to reserve them for healthcare workers. The cost of this dishonesty is that when they flipped the script people were less likely to comply/believe them. And any recommendations they give going forward has to go through the "Are they sacrificing me for the greater good" filter. I think this was just a problem of messaging. The science really wasn't there to support the hypothesis that masks could help limit transmission in the community. Even the evidence for their effectiveness in a clinical setting was extremely limited. There was reason to believe, however, that if they were effective, they'd be more effective in a clinical setting because they'd be used in combination with other PPE, hand washing would be more frequent, and staff were trained on how to wear masks correctly. Clinicians also happened to be putting their necks on the line by knowingly coming into close contact with infected individuals, while the rest of us were hunkered down at home. Here is an extract from a review of the published literature shortly after the CDC gave its guidance for the community to wear masks: > There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... > What's being asked about is gain of function research. I'm glad that we can (seemly) agree that Covid-19 created using genetic engineering. Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that its evolution was guided by deliberate human action?

The danger is that there's a big "we know better than you" component to it, which is used to justify hiding the truth. For example it might be true that the population in general would be better off if we save the masks for nurses. Then, the government should say "don't wear a mask, we need them for nurses". They should not say "don't wear a mask, they don't work". Also it might even be true that wearing masks reduces distancing, on average. Then, the government should say "wear a mask but pay attention that you don't stop distancing", and not "don't wear a mask, they don't work". The paternalistic PR-minded reasoning goes like 1) What do we want people to do? 2) How do we get them to do it? The answer to 2 should always be simply explaining the reasoning for 1, even if it would be a little less effective than making up some lie. In the long run this builds trust in the government, instead of reducing it leading to a total breakdown of compliance because they lie all the time. The most dangerous and insidious thing about this dynamic, IMHO, is that a certain type of smart or self-identified elite person will go along with it, because they, too, believe that you can't just tell the truth to the general public (of which they don't consider themselves a part of course).

scoopertrooper 6y ago
To be clear here, the CDC first issued guidance for the general community to wear masks on 3 April 2020, so about 2 months after the U.S declared a public health emergency. Even at the time the CDC gave its guidance, the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak. Here is an extract from a systematic review of the published research from shortly after the CDC gave its guidance. > There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... So the CDC was faced with a situation where there was minimal evidence for the efficacy of the general public wearing masks and a severe shortage of PPE among medical personnel. In that context, they held back recommending that the general public wear masks. It wasn't really till May/June that evidence started mounting in support of the general use of masks amongst the public. So there was no conspiracy, just hard working people trying to do their best in a difficult situation. The world is much more dull than people like to believe.
- cassalian 6y ago
  I tend to agree that the world generally is more dull than people like to believe. However, I'd say that mostly applies to people trying to make more ordinary events more extraordinary. But in the case of covid, we already have an extraordinary situation. I don't have any evidence that the CDC was deliberately withholding information (not to say it doesn't exist), but I do have evidence that medical leaders have felt it okay to lie to the public with regards to covid. > In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent... And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.” > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. > “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    I think this direct quote (from your article) best sums up his position: > “We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.” He's not lying, like the rest of us, he doesn't know. Especially, with the advent of the new variants. Also, it's odd you're pointing out him giving information during an on-the-record interview as evidence that he's lying.
    - cassalian 6y ago
      This is a lie of omission: > Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts... partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie): > Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Dr. Fauci believed that the real range was somewhere between 70 to 90 percent as you pointed out; however, he gave lower estimates to the public because he didn't believe the public was "ready to hear what he really thinks". So not only was he failing to correct pre-existing misconceptions, but he was actively spreading misconceptions about how much of the population he believed needed to be vaccinated. As such, he was lying by omission.

edejong 6y ago

No, it wasn't novel. History is full of prior examples of large scale outbreaks. Wide scale, highly detailed simulations have been performed over the years. Crisis managers have warned for decades that we were not prepared for the next pandemic. In addition, crises of different nature have similar structures. The readiness to deal with the structure of crises of different nature can be tested.

Consultant32452 6y ago

IMO the loss of credibility doesn't come from getting things wrong, but by blatant dishonest behavior. Here's two examples off the top of my head. The US Surgeon General, CDC, WHO, etc. got on national television and said masks don't work when what they appear to have really believed is that masks DO work, but they wanted to reserve them for healthcare workers. The cost of this dishonesty is that when they flipped the script people were less likely to comply/believe them. And any recommendations they give going forward has to go through the "Are they sacrificing me for the greater good" filter. When the question of whether COVID is lab generated is brought up, the relevant institutions consistently respond in a dishonest manner. They pretend that "lab generated" means gene editing and they vociferously deny the gene editing hypothesis. But that's not what is being asked. What's being asked about is gain of function research. These things are categorically different than something like "I think if they closed the borders sooner we would've had less impact." That might fall under "not performed perfectly" and I'm willing to grant a lot of leeway for that category of error under emergency circumstances.

scoopertrooper 6y ago
> The US Surgeon General, CDC, WHO, etc. got on national television and said masks don't work when what they appear to have really believed is that masks DO work, but they wanted to reserve them for healthcare workers. The cost of this dishonesty is that when they flipped the script people were less likely to comply/believe them. And any recommendations they give going forward has to go through the "Are they sacrificing me for the greater good" filter. I think this was just a problem of messaging. The science really wasn't there to support the hypothesis that masks could help limit transmission in the community. Even the evidence for their effectiveness in a clinical setting was extremely limited. There was reason to believe, however, that if they were effective, they'd be more effective in a clinical setting because they'd be used in combination with other PPE, hand washing would be more frequent, and staff were trained on how to wear masks correctly. Clinicians also happened to be putting their necks on the line by knowingly coming into close contact with infected individuals, while the rest of us were hunkered down at home. Here is an extract from a review of the published literature shortly after the CDC gave its guidance for the community to wear masks: > There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... > What's being asked about is gain of function research. I'm glad that we can (seemly) agree that Covid-19 created using genetic engineering. Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that its evolution was guided by deliberate human action?