5 ms·

I'm not sure "legitimate public debate" is warranted in this case. Too many people who are not qualified think they have "done their own research" and come to c

I'm not sure "legitimate public debate" is warranted in this case. Too many people who are not qualified think they have "done their own research" and come to conclusions causing real harm to other people. Even MDs are not necessarily well-suited to make expert opinions on pandemics and vaccine technology and such. A lot of MDs are qualified to diagnose conditions and recommend treatment and prescription medication... that doesn't mean they should act like they know more than people who specialize in infectious diseases. The place for "debate" of the effectiveness and safety of vaccines is peer-reviewed studies, not YouTube videos.

photochemsyn 5y ago
There is a certain legitimate distrust at this point over the lab leak issue. That's because of those two papers published in I believe Nature and the Lancet claiming that the evidence strongly supported a natural origin theory; those papers have now been discredited and some of the authors have deleted their Twitter accounts after exposure of their own emails that questioned natural origin theories due to anomalies in the viral sequence. That's very suspicious behavior for 'peer-reviewed research'.
- criddell 5y ago
  So you're saying the system works?
  - Notanothertoo 5y ago
    The lab leak is still not known or accepted by the wider public. Even after vanity fairs write up.
  - photochemsyn 5y ago
    1) The papers shouldn't have made it through any kind of honest peer-review process. 2) The papers to my knowledge have not been formally retracted, which is what normally happens after a peer-reviewed report is discredited. So, not working very well.
strken 5y ago
The problem is that legitimate public debate has been fully warranted within the context of the pandemic response already - see the initial WHO recommendations not to close borders (closing borders was effective), the failure of the WHO to give useful advice about masks (even cotton ones worn without a tight seal work to a degree), and the failure of the media to accurately represent scientific consensus on whether there was a lab leak (it's very hard to find strong evidence either way). There seems to be a common pattern where the media gets something wrong, scientists in the field aren't able to call it out, and there's a fairly long wait until someone has the visibility and credentials to point out the mistake. Banning discussion from more and more platforms could make it harder to correct real mistakes. On the other hand, "do your own research" clearly doesn't work out well for a lot of people. I have no idea how to balance the competing factors. Maybe we have to accept some legitimate debate will be stifled by platforms, or maybe this is a problem for scientists themselves to solve.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  While scientists have revised their advice in varying ways over the course of the pandemic, I would argue amateur armchair doctors have not been useful in that practice. Also, some of your statements ignore context: Mask recommendations weren't withheld because they were believed to not be effective, but because there was a massive run on masks and the hoarding by people who didn't even yet need them was impacting the ability for health providers to get them in hospitals. Once cloth masks especially were plentiful and the supply of medical masks adjusted, the recommendations changed. Public individuals trying to get ahead of the recommendations to put themselves ahead of the public good in that situation caused more harm than not. The lab leak hypothesis has no bearing on public health, discussion of it right now serves political drama only. Investigation of causes and prevention of future pandemics is important... for the experts. I don't think it should be brought up in public circles at all.
  - strken 5y ago
    The context was omitted for brevity, not ignored. It wasn't necessary to rehash the fine details of each example. Have the WHO stated they deliberately withheld advice on masks to preserve PPE for healthcare workers? What you're talking about was one commonly held belief for why they did it, but a simple failure to give advice under conditions of uncertainty would also explain it. The lab leak hypothesis absolutely has a bearing on public health in the future. You're right that even if the virus was leaked we can't unleak it, but debate about gain-of-function research and the safety standards of virology is critical to preventing future pandemics. Can you go into detail about what harm public individuals caused?

photochemsyn 5y ago

There is a certain legitimate distrust at this point over the lab leak issue. That's because of those two papers published in I believe Nature and the Lancet claiming that the evidence strongly supported a natural origin theory; those papers have now been discredited and some of the authors have deleted their Twitter accounts after exposure of their own emails that questioned natural origin theories due to anomalies in the viral sequence. That's very suspicious behavior for 'peer-reviewed research'.

criddell 5y ago
So you're saying the system works?
- Notanothertoo 5y ago
  The lab leak is still not known or accepted by the wider public. Even after vanity fairs write up.
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  1) The papers shouldn't have made it through any kind of honest peer-review process. 2) The papers to my knowledge have not been formally retracted, which is what normally happens after a peer-reviewed report is discredited. So, not working very well.

strken 5y ago

The problem is that legitimate public debate has been fully warranted within the context of the pandemic response already - see the initial WHO recommendations not to close borders (closing borders was effective), the failure of the WHO to give useful advice about masks (even cotton ones worn without a tight seal work to a degree), and the failure of the media to accurately represent scientific consensus on whether there was a lab leak (it's very hard to find strong evidence either way). There seems to be a common pattern where the media gets something wrong, scientists in the field aren't able to call it out, and there's a fairly long wait until someone has the visibility and credentials to point out the mistake. Banning discussion from more and more platforms could make it harder to correct real mistakes. On the other hand, "do your own research" clearly doesn't work out well for a lot of people. I have no idea how to balance the competing factors. Maybe we have to accept some legitimate debate will be stifled by platforms, or maybe this is a problem for scientists themselves to solve.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
While scientists have revised their advice in varying ways over the course of the pandemic, I would argue amateur armchair doctors have not been useful in that practice. Also, some of your statements ignore context: Mask recommendations weren't withheld because they were believed to not be effective, but because there was a massive run on masks and the hoarding by people who didn't even yet need them was impacting the ability for health providers to get them in hospitals. Once cloth masks especially were plentiful and the supply of medical masks adjusted, the recommendations changed. Public individuals trying to get ahead of the recommendations to put themselves ahead of the public good in that situation caused more harm than not. The lab leak hypothesis has no bearing on public health, discussion of it right now serves political drama only. Investigation of causes and prevention of future pandemics is important... for the experts. I don't think it should be brought up in public circles at all.
- strken 5y ago
  The context was omitted for brevity, not ignored. It wasn't necessary to rehash the fine details of each example. Have the WHO stated they deliberately withheld advice on masks to preserve PPE for healthcare workers? What you're talking about was one commonly held belief for why they did it, but a simple failure to give advice under conditions of uncertainty would also explain it. The lab leak hypothesis absolutely has a bearing on public health in the future. You're right that even if the virus was leaked we can't unleak it, but debate about gain-of-function research and the safety standards of virology is critical to preventing future pandemics. Can you go into detail about what harm public individuals caused?