3 ms·

It's not conflicting. New evidence changes science-based understanding and decisions. This is at the core of how science works. It's impossible to know every

It's not conflicting. New evidence changes science-based understanding and decisions. This is at the core of how science works. It's impossible to know everything about everything immediately so you make the best decisions you can based on the information you do have. Herd immunity is still the holy grail of dealing with an infectious disease like this. If new evidence says we're not going to reach it, for whatever reason, then you have to shift tactics to something else that may not be as ideal but is more likely achievable. While I understand that messages/information changing can cause some genuine confusion, the concept that once information is delivered it must never change and if it does then you can't trust any of it is just a wedge used to sow mistrust. While it may be comforting to have that sort of authority/consistency, anybody who tells you they know everything about everything immediately is lying to you.

sebow 5y ago
You're right,except the fact that last year when some of the "less-popular" specialists(not random facebook boomers) were saying exactly this, they were called conspirationists,fake news, extremists,what have you. So while you're right, the problem with predictions is that not everybody sees as far in the future as other people.Anecdotal experience is the most important factor here.While you can definitely say that you don't accept someone's expertise/prediction to be valid given current data, saying that they're _definitely_ fake news , again, given current data, is also disingenious.
kickout 5y ago
I have never been a 'information is etched in stone' type. It is very much dynamic But the people making these calls are unaccountable. We don't have herd immunity for _many_ pathogens, yet this is the one we irrevocably change society (in ways I would argue are more harmful to humans than this particular virus)? Nobody has a black and white information, yet our leaders are treating that way and refuse to outline off-ramps to these restrictions.

sebow 5y ago

You're right,except the fact that last year when some of the "less-popular" specialists(not random facebook boomers) were saying exactly this, they were called conspirationists,fake news, extremists,what have you. So while you're right, the problem with predictions is that not everybody sees as far in the future as other people.Anecdotal experience is the most important factor here.While you can definitely say that you don't accept someone's expertise/prediction to be valid given current data, saying that they're _definitely_ fake news , again, given current data, is also disingenious.

kickout 5y ago

I have never been a 'information is etched in stone' type. It is very much dynamic But the people making these calls are unaccountable. We don't have herd immunity for _many_ pathogens, yet this is the one we irrevocably change society (in ways I would argue are more harmful to humans than this particular virus)? Nobody has a black and white information, yet our leaders are treating that way and refuse to outline off-ramps to these restrictions.