6 ms·

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 pop

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.

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.