4 ms·

> As we saw early in the pandemic, the elites are always visibly chattering among themselves about the topics of the day, and when they form a new opinion, the

> As we saw early in the pandemic, the elites are always visibly chattering among themselves about the topics of the day, and when they form a new opinion, the experts usually quickly cave to agree with them, and try to pretend they agreed all along. My experience was the opposite in most of the world, where experts recommended lockdowns and masks and most political "elites" (especially in the US and UK) ignoring that to the chagrin of the experts.

etangent 5y ago
Cases when experts propose something and then elites disagree with the experts are not surprising. It is the default state of affairs everywhere in the world. That's a "dog bites man" situation---essentially a non-story. What is really surprising (and revealing) is when elites do propose something and then experts follow along even though it runs against their previous opinion from just a week ago. For a vivid example: most experts before the pandemic agreed that masks help limit spread of respiratory diseases, yet nevertheless in the very first few weeks of the pandemic most of them followed along with the completely unscientific claim that masks do not help and that everyone should simply wash their hands instead. Likewise, we had expert voices making sophisticated arguments that shutting down international travel would do nothing to limit spread of the virus---a claim that a middle-schooler would call out as largely bullshit.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  I suspect that by the time anybody suggested shutting down international travel (at least in the US), it was far too late to make a difference. The virus was already widespread, with no hope of containing it.
dexen 5y ago
What you describe is matter of selection bias: in fields as crowded as public health and medicine, experts voice all sorts of advice, citing all kinds of research, and often contradicting each other. At the end of the day, we regular citizens usually hear from those experts that got their voices amplified by operators of platforms (journalism, political institutions, etc.). In Robin's terms, the elites choose from the crowd of experts those that they like the advice the best.
bko 5y ago
> It was Jan. 31, 2020, and a leading infectious disease expert, Kristian Andersen, had been examining the genetic characteristics of the newly emerging SARS-CoV virus. > “Some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, noting that he and other scientists “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” > But, he added, “we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.” > Change they did. Just four days later, Andersen gave feedback in advance of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine letter that was referenced in the prestigious Lancet medical journal to argue against the idea that the virus had been engineered and brand it a conspiracy theory. > In his email, Andersen called the ideas that the virus was engineered “crackpot theories,” writing, “engineering can mean many things and could be done for basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done.” It appeared that the expert gave an unbiased opinion, and 4 days later, not only did they retract the opinion but denounced it as a conspiracy theory. Maybe he just had more time to review the information or maybe the elite told them that this theory is politically sensitive and should be dismissed. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fauci-s-emails-don-t-prove-wuhan-conspiracy-raise-further-n1269650 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fauci-s-emails-don-t-pr...
- awillen 5y ago
  His unbiased opinion was clearly not that strong - he literally put the word "potentially" in parentheses in the first sentence you quoted. Then he specifically said that his opinions could change because the analyses weren't done. Then his opinion changed. If this is the best evidence you could come up with that elites are telling experts to change their opinions and experts are acquiescing, it doesn't make for a strong case.

etangent 5y ago

Cases when experts propose something and then elites disagree with the experts are not surprising. It is the default state of affairs everywhere in the world. That's a "dog bites man" situation---essentially a non-story. What is really surprising (and revealing) is when elites do propose something and then experts follow along even though it runs against their previous opinion from just a week ago. For a vivid example: most experts before the pandemic agreed that masks help limit spread of respiratory diseases, yet nevertheless in the very first few weeks of the pandemic most of them followed along with the completely unscientific claim that masks do not help and that everyone should simply wash their hands instead. Likewise, we had expert voices making sophisticated arguments that shutting down international travel would do nothing to limit spread of the virus---a claim that a middle-schooler would call out as largely bullshit.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I suspect that by the time anybody suggested shutting down international travel (at least in the US), it was far too late to make a difference. The virus was already widespread, with no hope of containing it.

dexen 5y ago

What you describe is matter of selection bias: in fields as crowded as public health and medicine, experts voice all sorts of advice, citing all kinds of research, and often contradicting each other. At the end of the day, we regular citizens usually hear from those experts that got their voices amplified by operators of platforms (journalism, political institutions, etc.). In Robin's terms, the elites choose from the crowd of experts those that they like the advice the best.

bko 5y ago

> It was Jan. 31, 2020, and a leading infectious disease expert, Kristian Andersen, had been examining the genetic characteristics of the newly emerging SARS-CoV virus. > “Some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, noting that he and other scientists “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” > But, he added, “we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.” > Change they did. Just four days later, Andersen gave feedback in advance of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine letter that was referenced in the prestigious Lancet medical journal to argue against the idea that the virus had been engineered and brand it a conspiracy theory. > In his email, Andersen called the ideas that the virus was engineered “crackpot theories,” writing, “engineering can mean many things and could be done for basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done.” It appeared that the expert gave an unbiased opinion, and 4 days later, not only did they retract the opinion but denounced it as a conspiracy theory. Maybe he just had more time to review the information or maybe the elite told them that this theory is politically sensitive and should be dismissed. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fauci-s-emails-don-t-prove-wuhan-conspiracy-raise-further-n1269650 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fauci-s-emails-don-t-pr...

awillen 5y ago
His unbiased opinion was clearly not that strong - he literally put the word "potentially" in parentheses in the first sentence you quoted. Then he specifically said that his opinions could change because the analyses weren't done. Then his opinion changed. If this is the best evidence you could come up with that elites are telling experts to change their opinions and experts are acquiescing, it doesn't make for a strong case.