4 ms·

(a) Do you call any case where someone turns out to be wrong "false messaging"? Their prior knowledge led them to believe (wrongly, but it seems to me, quite ho

(a) Do you call any case where someone turns out to be wrong "false messaging"? Their prior knowledge led them to believe (wrongly, but it seems to me, quite honestly) that non-N95 masks would not be effective, and they didn't have evidence to the contrary, and they very openly explained that their fear is healthcare providers not having masks, which was 100% a sincere worry any official worth their salt would have. (b) A tweet only has so much room to explain things. There's a reason websites in general, official CDC recommendations in particular, and the news media exist. If the only source of information you get your news from for several weeks amidst a pandemic is Twitter, and the tweet turns out to be lacking some info, the problem isn't the source you're reading. (c) Even if you establish there was "false messaging from the surgeon general on Twitter" (which you haven't due to the reasons above), it's quite a goalpost move from "the CDC was being deceptive/manipulative". Especially when the the surgeon general was picked by the president and specifically not the NIH authority figure that the nation was looking up to 24/7.

abstractbarista 5y ago
They stated something as fact to influence our behavior, when they did not actually have the requisite knowledge to make such a statement at that point in time. They should have instead said "We don't know whether they're effective yet, so don't hoard them, because doing so could cause X." There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something yet. Instead, they make commands without supporting evidence. That implies total disregard for the peoples' intelligence. Upon realizing this, trust is lost and dissenting actions increase.
- dataflow 5y ago
  Can you at least link to an official recommendation from the CDC so we can talk about the same thing? So far the only link I've seen is a tweet (not an official recommendation) from the surgeon general (not the CDC).
rajin444 5y ago
A leader's most important role is to build and maintain trust. > "Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!" This could very easily have been reworded to an honest "we do not know if they are effective" instead of a definitive "they are not". You cannot in good conscience call yourself a good leader and/or scientist if you do not acknowledge the limits of your understanding. People may not understand the science, but they understand trust. And given that no individual has the time and/or intelligence to understand the science, breaches of trust should be the end of a leader's career. They're failing in their most important duty.

abstractbarista 5y ago

They stated something as fact to influence our behavior, when they did not actually have the requisite knowledge to make such a statement at that point in time. They should have instead said "We don't know whether they're effective yet, so don't hoard them, because doing so could cause X." There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something yet. Instead, they make commands without supporting evidence. That implies total disregard for the peoples' intelligence. Upon realizing this, trust is lost and dissenting actions increase.

dataflow 5y ago
Can you at least link to an official recommendation from the CDC so we can talk about the same thing? So far the only link I've seen is a tweet (not an official recommendation) from the surgeon general (not the CDC).

rajin444 5y ago

A leader's most important role is to build and maintain trust. > "Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!" This could very easily have been reworded to an honest "we do not know if they are effective" instead of a definitive "they are not". You cannot in good conscience call yourself a good leader and/or scientist if you do not acknowledge the limits of your understanding. People may not understand the science, but they understand trust. And given that no individual has the time and/or intelligence to understand the science, breaches of trust should be the end of a leader's career. They're failing in their most important duty.