5 ms·

The second lie listed was to a NYT reporter, on an article titled "How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?" The question is kind of a wish for certainty about an unc

The second lie listed was to a NYT reporter, on an article titled "How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?" The question is kind of a wish for certainty about an uncertain thing. Even if 80% are immunized nationally, what if you live in a town where only 60% are? What if your town is 80% immunized but the other 20% all attend the same rally and get covid? Of course there cannot be an answer to such a question. Between that and the ridiculous anti vax crowd my sympathy is with the public health folks. The fact is that to the best of our knowledge the vaccine works great, and if people are too dumb to get it despite that and endanger others, what choice is left? They can't force you to take it, so we get lies and $1000 cash rewards instead.. It's perfectly valid to believe Fauci lied and also believe the vaccine works. Some people are just never going to get the vax until they personally see friend/family dying from covid, and blaming fauci is simply convenient excuse for it.

kian 5y ago
I believe the entire thrust of this article is that the noble lie to achieve policy objectives backfires in spectacular and predictable ways, because it erodes trust in the statements made by officials and experts. Regardless of where your sympathy lies, perhaps it would be good to engage with the substance of the article. The more lying engaged in by public officials, the more ridiculous the anti-vax crowd will become, precisely because for the majority - lacking the medical expertise to judge vaccine safety - their beliefs are an expression of their trust in the government and experts at large. If not lying isn't cutting it, you may just have to accept that sometimes policy objectives aren't achievable, given the constraints of human decency. Even when failing to achieve those objectives costs lives.

kian 5y ago

I believe the entire thrust of this article is that the noble lie to achieve policy objectives backfires in spectacular and predictable ways, because it erodes trust in the statements made by officials and experts. Regardless of where your sympathy lies, perhaps it would be good to engage with the substance of the article. The more lying engaged in by public officials, the more ridiculous the anti-vax crowd will become, precisely because for the majority - lacking the medical expertise to judge vaccine safety - their beliefs are an expression of their trust in the government and experts at large. If not lying isn't cutting it, you may just have to accept that sometimes policy objectives aren't achievable, given the constraints of human decency. Even when failing to achieve those objectives costs lives.