50 ms·

Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

510 points by hncurious 5y ago

CryptoPunk 5y ago
I've shared this story multiple times, because it was such a poignant example of what can go wrong when truth becomes secondary to an agenda: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28411734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28411734
etchalon 5y ago
While I appreciate the articles thrust, I think any article which compares any other country to America fails to recognize that a weirdly high percentage of Americans seem to have a distinct distrust in government. It was exaggerated in this pandemic because the person whom that group has come to place a lot of trust in (Trump) was telling them that they shouldn't listen to anyone but him, and that everything was fine.
hyperpallium2 5y ago
Part of the long-term program to breed out distrust of authority. It doesn't affect elites, who can choose sensibly without trust, because they have time, training and access to information.
rob_c 5y ago
Thanks for posting. It's a terrible shame society has torn itself apart before we could learn the (to some) obvious lesson, but at least maybe this will inform policy in the future... That or governments are now more terrified of people losing their minds and so feel they should be even more controlling in their fear response as a knee jerk reaction.... Either way, in the UK we failed to save about 67% of those who could have been saved through bad practice and even worse policy...
- jerf 5y ago
  There's two aspects to this, I think. One is true protectionism. My objection to this is that if we perhaps had superhumans guiding us mere humans, they might be capable of modulating our information flow to protect us, but mere humans lack this power. Indeed, let's be honest, being a politician is if anything a counter-indicator in being the sort of person capable of dealing with the real issues that arise in a crisis. The truth is government isn't really capable of modulating information flow to a society for their own good or protection. I think a lot of people implicitly and in an unexamined way tend to assume that "the government" is populated by some sort of superhumans, but they're just people. Relative to the enormous problems they face, even their training or experience they may have doesn't necessarily put them that far ahead of normal people, who aren't all unskilled yokels out in the fields trying to figure out how to keep their sheep in the pen or something. The other aspect is the abuse of information flow to consolidate, create, or simply exercise power, since "information is power" is not really a metaphor. It goes beyond merely being incapable to outright reprehensible that our "trusted" leaders would use the opportunity of having this sort of information in a life-and-death situation for such crass purposes, and there ought to be consequences for them, personally. Either way, we have once again demonstrated that there really isn't a compelling reason to be keeping information from people.
  - rob_c 5y ago
    Broadly after seeing some of the material coming out of the UK "think tanks" in early 2020 this was really "govt, starched collar, upper class" thinking that the proles will start eating themselves if we even mention that there's a chance they could die. I think projected compliance with a lockdown in the UK was initially estimated and serious attempts were made to model it at 40% compliance. When govt got near 95%+ compliance during the first lock down other idiots took over behind the scenes, patted themselves on the back and decided why not go for "zero-covid" in 2020... Edit: (I'm not joking there is a statement on record from politicians reacting to the suggestion with "this is not Asia, people would not stand for a lockdown", aka we expect that as policy to not be able to function) AKA the first lockdown being a success in the UK was a great statement of how the people behave that had damming effect on the direction of health policy. Heard immunity would have been reached much quicker and the 2020 winter less bad had more healthy people been exposed in the start and summer of 2020. The fact that lockdown and rules were followed so well actually made the winter worse than the initial (sensible) projections predicted.
    - mulvya 5y ago
      > there is a statement on record from politicians reacting to the suggestion with "this is not Asia, people would not stand for a lockdown" Fauci said that in Feb 2020. -------- Q. How confident are you that the Chinese are doing what needs to be done? A. They're doing things that have completely broken the paradigm of how you respond. They have been, in a draconian way, shutting down everything. They have locked down 50 million people, including the entire 11 million-person city of Wuhan. They will not allow anyone into Beijing unless they have a 14-day quarantine. They're essentially locking people who test positive in their houses. I mean, they're doing things that are almost unheard of in the annals of public health. Q. Will it work? A. As unusual and extreme as it is, it might actually, ultimately, have an effect. There's this report that the number of new cases for the last couple of days in China has gone down. I don't put much strength in that unless I see it really start to come down and down and down. A few days of going down doesn't mean anything to me. But if it continues to go down, that might be a signal that they're having an effect of what otherwise would be extreme means. Q. That would never happen here, would it? Locking down 50 million people? A. No, not a chance. It would never happen. -------- https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/17/new-coronavirus-what-dont-we-know-dr-anthony-fauci-q-a-opinion/4790996002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/17/new-corona...
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  > governments are now more terrified of people losing their minds The empirical evidence from the covid experience seems to justify their fears that a segment of the population will lose their minds.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
Inconsistent PR is just a peek at the giant cesspool of incompetence and corruption that we get when epidemic is managed by people who are better suited to discuss warning labels on cigarets
xkbarkar 5y ago
Wow an entire thread full of civil opposing opinions and discussions. I feel sanity has returned.
newaccount2021 5y ago
when I hear the CDC director talking honestly about the correlation between obesity and covid outcomes, I'll agree that we are finally embracing hard truths (cue predictable HN responses citing an outlier marathon runner who died of covid)
ltbarcly3 5y ago
Edit: before you downvote this, read it? I'm not an anti-vax nutcase. They didn't trust the public with their actual thinking at any point during Covid. The guidance was initially "don't wear a mask, it will make it worse because you'll infect yourself with your hand" to "we'll just lock down for 3 weeks and then back to normal" to "we have to flatten the curve to avoid overwhelming hospitals" to the current policy of basically 0 covid tolerance. Why would they initially tell us to not wear masks? The generous answer is that they were afraid that a run on masks would make them unavailable to medical professionals who as far as we knew at that point needed them to survive. The uncharitable answer is that the people giving advice are imbeciles who hadn't even read the national plan to respond to respiratory pandemics. The most ridiculous part of our COVID response, at least where I am in the USA, is that we have a very detailed national plan that tells policy makers exactly how to respond to such an event. It was made following SARS (another coronavirus), and it is very good, and you can even read it online! It was completely ignored of course. (You can find an up to date version here, originally published in 2011: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid-pandemic-plan.pdf https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid-pandemic-plan.pdf ) My daughter's school just went back to 100% at-home via zoom because 'too many children had positive covid tests'. How many had positive tests? What is the threshold or flow-chart for this decision defining what 'too many' means? Was this decision made with guidance or following guidelines given by public health experts operating under the umbrella of a national (or state, or county, or even school district) strategy? Hah! As if anyone would answer any of these questions! The answer is that 'too many' cases of covid means they close the schools 'for awhile'. The part that concerns me isn't just the lack of transparency, it is that behind the lack of transparency there is nothing there, it's just a non expert going with their gut or responding to pressure from hysterical parents. If we want to 'trust science' that starts with 'consulting scientists'!
- rob_c 5y ago
  Not knowing where you're from sounds like you're commenting on the UK policy at least (I'm sure it parallels others)... Speaking from an unfortunate position of experience a lot of this is driven (in the UK) by whitehall asking deliberately leading questions which are politically charged of civil servants and scientists. aka, there is a difference between, "what do we have to do to reduce deaths due to X this summer" and "what do we have to do to eradicate X this summer"... It's a shame that once these decisions had been made that only then the questions were asked. This is what comes from introducing data illiterate driven morons into the heart of politics, they don't understand the minutia of modelling, don't understand statsistics, and they abuse anything they find or read to a political end. </rant>
woliveirajr 5y ago
As almost everything that is written now, almost-post-pandemic, the survival bias isn't disregard. When images come from China welding building's doors, everybody shouted. When government in Brazil said to skip the Carnival to avoid the covid from tourists, lots complained. Now, looking back, is easy to say that one specific opinion was the best and would be perfect, had it been followed. Just remember those million other opinions that were terrible and be thankful that the worst ones weren't followed.
MikeTaylor 5y ago
SIDE-ISSUE ALERT! The article ends with the statement "The author declares no competing interests". I think this is very poor phrasing, as it's ambiguous: does it mean "The author has not declared any competing interests", or "The author has positively declared that there are no competing interests"? (To be clear, I am not for a moment suggesting any hidden interests on the part of the author, and I think his point is both correct and important. It's only the wording that I dislike.)
- timr 5y ago
  This is a stock phrase used by the journal. The author didn't write the words, he just checked a box on a form.
- gameshot911 5y ago
  To me it's not ambiguous - it means the latter.
- mechanical_bear 5y ago
  This is some bike shedding of the top tier variety.
colordrops 5y ago
The article is discussing the media and government being intentionally vague or even misinformative because they don't trust the public, but it backfires and causes more distrust. The flip side that wasn't discussed is the belittling and censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives, which engendered even more distrust. Their strategy of information control backfired, and they doubled down. Now we've got a huge swath of US citizens that will never take the vaccine.
- WhisperingShiba 5y ago
  And thats a good thing too. Don't reward poor behavior with compliance.
  - neogodless 5y ago
    It's trivially easy to understand that getting a vaccine that benefits you, as well as the people around you, is good for the people around you, much more so than it is good for someone you're protesting against. And not getting the vaccine is potentially bad for you, and those around you, much more so than it is bad for anyone you're protesting against. The vaccine helps your body fight the virus, and reduce the spread of the virus in your local community. That should be the key point in deciding if you get a vaccine.
    - andrewclunn 5y ago
      That's just the thing though, isn't it. Is the vaccine good for you and the people around you? Since we know asymptomatic carriers are a thing, does getting the vaccine protect those around you? Are you even able to get reliable reporting on the side effects (of various shots) and what groups are likely to be at risk for them? Assuming a disagreement about reality is a disagreement about values is a great way to straw man without knowing it.
  - jjwiseman 5y ago
    That's got real "I'm not taking the safe, free, incredibly effective vaccine to own the libs" energy.
bastardoperator 5y ago
I agree with the sentiment of this article, but I'm noticing that some folks can't determine fact from fiction even when presented with data that supports the facts or makes them irrefutable. No amount of logic, facts, or transparency will be enough for these folks, and while I can appreciate a skeptic, some of these people are beyond basic help and need professional guidance.
- specialist 5y ago
  Our current epistemological crisis has been decades in the making. The modern No Knowings utterly reject facts, truth, objectivity. Aka Nihilism.
- DuskStar 5y ago
  This is of course true for people on both sides of the political aisle, but for different subjects.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Quite. I watched a debate between Scott Horton and Bill Kristol. Watching Kristol remain steadfast in his position despite all evidence is pretty amazing. Horton wasn’t perfect either but at last he had evidence on his side.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  It certainly does not help that search will cater to whatever it is you are looking for with helpful articles supporting just about any viewpoint. To your point, if there is no helping 'these folks', the logical conclusion is to take guardrails down and let god sort them out. I will admit I am still coming to terms with all this.
- mmmpop 5y ago
  It feels like a game of political chicken to me. Like, "if you won't trust the voting public enough to give them the whole truth and instead treat them like blubbering fools, how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?" So instead of compliance, they'll bring the whole damn thing down in protest. I don't think the plurality of those who refuse the vaccine actively deny the existence of the virus, or even the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. I feel they're just absolutely sick of the hypocrisy and pandering by "leaders" who refuse to lead by example on much of anything. As many before me have said, you'll always have the kooks that deny science but I honest-to-God think those are the minority.
Workaccount2 5y ago
You would think they would have learned from the war on drugs propaganda
bedhead 5y ago
Hard truths and politics aren't compatible because there's too much incentive misalignment. People in power have no reason to tell the truth because it'll get them fired, and the reason for that is most people don't even want the truth anyhow, it triggers some form of pain. The path of least resistance inevitably seems to be lying in some form.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Ignoring the truth also triggers pain... it just comes a bit later.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    correlation is not causation if they ve already forgotten what caused it. People are really not good at being governed
guscost 5y ago
COVID lesson: Never trust the high-priesthood of professional science with political decisions.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  Do you believe Dr. Fauci was calling the shots last year in 2020?
wonderwonder 5y ago
The author is completely right in that the government at least in the US attempting to downplay, mislead or 'avoid panic' absolutely destroyed any credibility and is still suffering from it. Most people are not stupid, if provided with all available information as well as clear statements regarding the reliability of that information and just a clear message saying "hey this is new and we have no idea, we are making our best guess" people will make decent choices. Unfortunately the US decided to torpedo its credibility, and all sides decided to turn it into a political issue which a pandemic should very much not be. All politics all the time and the US is now crippling itself. In the absence of real honest leadership people turned to the loudest voices of the media. Once the people distrust the government and think they are lying its very hard to appeal to their logic again. I am very much not a fan of Bush II but he did it right after 9/11. What he did after though is a topic for another day.
- Gortal278 5y ago
  > Most people are not stupid, if provided with all available information as well as clear statements regarding the reliability of that information and just a clear message saying "hey this is new and we have no idea, we are making our best guess" people will make decent choices Citation needed
  - zarkov99 5y ago
    Perhaps we should try being honest with each other next time? Certainly lying did not work out very well.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    People are not stupid when their immediate interest is threatened. Now, we could argue that people as a whole have problems with estimating risk ( they do ) and predicting long term consequences ( they do ), but they can usually notice when a politician is telling them its raining, when said politician is directly pissing at them. Then again, I am from the old country, where parents ingrain in you distrust for the government. By comparison, US population really does trust its decision-makers. Or maybe trusted, if the article is to be believed.
veltas 5y ago
> Covid lesson: tell the truth. Thanks for sharing this novel concept, in a scientific journal no less.
ISL 5y ago
From CDC's Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (2018): 1. Be First 2. Be Right. 3. Be Credible. 4. Express Empathy. 5. Promote Action. 6. Show Respect. https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/manual/index.asp https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/manual/index.asp
- g42gregory 5y ago
  I personally find these principles coming from CDC, against the backdrop of their actions lately, very hypocritical.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  The big problem is what to do when "Be Right" is vague because information is poor and you're dealing with a society where black and white thinking is rampant. Combined with a largely complete lack of understanding of the actual messiness of the scientific method.
  - cloverich 5y ago
    It's as easy as saying "X seems like the best bet, because Y, but we need more evidence (which we'll get via Z around time T) to be certain".
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      The problem is that a good chunk of society views science as it should be infallible and its a failure if its not. And scientists tend to default to "50-50" kinds of language when they're dealing with uncertainty, and tend to overly emphasize uncertainty. I'd kind of like to see science communicators start talking in the language of sports betting when it comes to uncertainty instead.
  - supertrope 5y ago
    http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
CivBase 5y ago
There are still many people - especially in the US - who are concerned about (or adamantly opposed to) receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. While this is often framed as a conservative-vs-liberal issue within the US, that doesn't line up with the data. Vaccination rates seem to correlate more strongly with a group's trust in the government. Conservatives do tend to have less trust in the government than liberals, but the difference is even more pronounced when comparing affluent groups to historically marginalized groups - regardless of political leanings. Trust is hard to earn and easy to spend. But it is an invaluable resource for a government to have. Hopefully we learn that some day.
veltas 5y ago
What are the hard truths?
- calebm 5y ago
  Vaccines are not risk-free.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    No one said they weren't
    - switch007 5y ago
      They certainly weren't talking about the risks and side effects when telling the entire country the only way to get your life and rights back is to take the vaccine. The message was: get the vaccine, get the vaccine, get the vaccine, do your moral duty
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        Because the risks of not getting the vaccine are orders of magnitude higher than the risks of getting the vaccine. It's absolutely insane that were still having this conversation at this point.
        HideousKojima 5y ago
        Not for young people
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        Yes, even for young people. Even when you look at the side-effects of the vaccine, they tend to be more common among people who get the virus. For example, myocarditis is several times more common among young people who get CoVID-19 than among young people who get vaccinated.[1] Given that everyone is eventually going to get infected or vaccinated, getting vaccinated probably significantly decreases the risk of myocarditis among young people. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y
dehrmann 5y ago
Fauci (and the CDC) lying about masks out of fear it would cause a shortage for healthcare providers burnt a lot of trust quickly. It probably helped the US get into the polarized situation it's in now.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Fauci (and the CDC) lying about masks out of fear it would cause a shortage for healthcare providers burnt a lot of trust quickly. It probably helped the US get into the polarized situation it's in now. This confuses me. If the claim that masks "don't work" caused folks to distrust public health authorities, then why are many of the folks who claim to distrust those PH authorities refusing to wear masks?
  - d23 5y ago
    This thread is full of bizarre, depressing contradictions. I'm having trouble processing that this many people in this community think this way.
  - joshuaissac 5y ago
    Because once they lose their credibility, everything they say will be viewed with distrust. > If the claim that masks "don't work" caused folks to distrust public health authorities I would say it is more the contradictory messaging that caused the distrust, than the initial claim that masks do not work.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >I would say it is more the backtracking that caused the distrust. And so, if I say "gravity does not exist" and then turn around and say that the effect we call "gravity" accelerates matter at 9.8 meters per second per second, that means "the effect we call gravity" doesn't exist? That's a strange way to look at it, IMHO.
      - themaninthedark 5y ago
smoe 5y ago
I think the other hard truth that citizens don't get entrusted with, is that we don't really know how to deal with a pandemic in the modern globalized world. Sure, some countries had plans and scenarios made before, but nonetheless got caught with their pants down. E.g Switzerland doing a nationwide epidemic simulation back in 2013, identifying serious flaws in preparedness, but not acting on it at all. And even if, it would most likely not have panned out as neatly as predicted. We haven't dealt with a situation like this before, so things are going to be messy. Opinions changing as more information comes in, not necessary the most effective measure being taken, coordination among countries not working, people fighting for attention etc. I reckon it's going to take a couple years of analysis to be able to look back and with more certainty say what would have been the optimal way to deal with it for different regions and what the right tradeoffs might have been.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  Canada's Dr. Tam said at the beginning of the pandemic that we were in pretty good shape because we learned important lessons from SARS. And then we promptly ran low on PPE. And told everybody that masking was not important because there was no evidence that there was airborne transmission.
- CaptainMarvel 5y ago
  The UK similarly did simulations five years ago [0], but didn’t act on the findings from those either. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/07/coronavirus-report-warned-of-impact-on-uk-four-years-before-pandemic https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/07/coronavirus...
tunesmith 5y ago
One of the variant ideas I was stuck on was when the government and CDC decided (pre-Delta) to tell everyone that masks weren't required in stores if you were vaccinated. Part of the justification was that they thought it would create incentive for the unvaccinated to get vaccinated, since the carrot was that they could stop wearing masks afterward. Regardless of whether that had the desired effect or not, it seemed to be another example of being too clever by half, rather than just sticking with what the data itself suggested.
- neogodless 5y ago
  > tell everyone that masks weren't required in stores if you weren't vaccinated. I assume you've got a typo going on here? You mean "were vaccinated"?
  - tunesmith 5y ago
    yes, thanks.
kyrra 5y ago
WSJ has a commentary piece in today's paper that is similar but also important. The jist I get out of it is that science is ever evolving and there is no "trust the science", as it just gives us data and is not an absolute truth. Science can provide varying levels of certainty on given part of a subject, but running around and invoking science for policy decisions is a bad plan when there isn't solid data backing it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/partisan-science-antiscience-facts-misrepresentation-fauci-lancet-lab-leak-11633960740 https://www.wsj.com/articles/partisan-science-antiscience-fa... Mirror: https://archive.is/GwRw1 https://archive.is/GwRw1
- shockeychap 5y ago
  "One had better be scrupulously honest before asking people to surrender their own judgment and simply believe what they are told." Couldn't have said it better myself.
r00fus 5y ago
The lede is buried here, the reason the US is not cohesive is entirely due to the former president who continues to this day to support and spur the anti-vax movement.
- gojomo 5y ago
  By... getting vaxed himself? Why aren't the vax campaigns leading with Trump's action – and his repeated verbal endorsement of choosing to get vaxed – to overcome resistance in his followers? Such over-focus on Trump is a pathological scapegoating to deflect responsibility on the part of both the professional permanent bureacracies, and the current administration. Trump did awfully, yes. But the mistrust & errors spring from far deeper cultural issues, and repeated failures by the public health officials - in their mixed-messages, manipulative exagerrations, & arbitrary punitive actions. Vax resistance is at some of its highest levels in urban minority communities with no love for Trump.
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    "Pathological scapegoating" of the guy that has literally said "No, that’s okay. That’s all right. You got your freedoms".
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    > Why aren't the vax campaigns leading with Trump's action – and his repeated verbal endorsement of choosing to get vaxed – to overcome resistance in his followers? If you go to trump community sites you'll find out that: 1. They think he's an idiot for taking the vax 2. They think he was threatened to taking it 3. He didn't really take it
    - gojomo 5y ago
      Interesting. But if they're that persistently delusional, even when Trump's actions & words are contrary to their beliefs, are their actions "entirely due" to Trump? The phenomena you describe suggest it's bigger & deeper than any devotion given him. (Is it even fair to call them "Trump community sites" at that point?)
Gunax 5y ago
So what were the lies? I guess I just stop not see it. Surely we can agree there is a difference between lying and jist being wrong.
zz865 5y ago
One problem is there really is some risk with the vaccine. At a population level its best if everyone takes the vaccine - there are huge benefits, but unfortunately a small minority gets hurt. Its best if everyone else gets vaccinated except for me. Of course when everyone wants to be that exception the vaccination doesn't stop community spread so people get sick. The problem is the hard truth of "take the risk because society benefits" doesn't work in an American me-first mentality.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  But there's a bigger risk with the virus. The selfish calculus should also be to get vaccinated.
  - adevx 5y ago
    That is a sweeping generalisation. Covid19 targets a very select group disproportionately, being young and healthy changes the risk dynamics significantly.
    - JamisonM 5y ago
      As a hockey fan what I see is that at least 4 NHL players have had their careers badly harmed or ended by COVID-19, that's not a very big pool of people, of which only some small proportion have been infected - that has changed my perception of the risk dynamics significantly.
  - rc2634 5y ago
    The calculus is different for tens of millions people who acquired natural immunity from previous infections before the vaccines even existed. I am one of them. There is no good reason for me to take the risk with the vaccines because it will only increase my immunity marginally.
    - JamisonM 5y ago
      I think the evidence available today contradicts this position. Vaccine immunity is much better than naturally acquired immunity, and natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is much better still.
nineplay 5y ago
Honestly this is a pretty hand-wavy article from a respected journal and I think represents the kind of thing we need less of, not more of His actual research is pretty sparse and comparing the Danish government to every other government glosses over any number of correlation/causation issues. Yet it gets cited and quoted and everyone jumps on it as confirmation of everything they believed before they read it. People need to start questioning the articles that they _agree_ with. If nothing in the article challenges your beliefs, if nothing in the research or conclusions surprise you or makes you consider things differently in any way, than it deserves more skepticism, not less. A whole lot of sites are generating a whole lot of clicks and making a whole lot of money by the simple process of validating their audiences beliefs. It is unimaginably destructive.
mnglkhn2 5y ago
Nature are the ones who published the paper dismissing the lab origin of the virus. So, not much credibility there either.
avgcorrection 5y ago
Here’s something funny about the discourse around distrust of the government. The problem is often framed as a being about the distrust per se: “we want the public to trust the goverment but they don’t. Why is that?” But this provokes the question: how trustworthy is the government, objectively speaking? At first it might seem like there is a hidden premise: yes, the government is trustworthy. But there’s also another alternative: that’s besides the point. Are Corn Flakes really healthy? Well that’s not a concern for the marketing department. But it is their concern if people don’t think that Corn Flakes are healthy. So, the funny part: the discourse around distrust-of-government might betray a manipulative agenda. The talking heads want people to trust the government but they don’t seem concerned with whether or not it is rational to trust the government. But any honest assessment of trust has to compare two things: 1. How much the thing is trusted 2. How trustworthy it is (by some standard) How rational (1) is is based on how much it differs from (2) -- there is no way to assess trust in a vacuum (without (2)). The old phrase “manufacture of consent” comes to mind.
d23 5y ago
> Former US president Donald Trump admitted to playing down the risks of the coronavirus to “reduce panic”. The entire premise of this is absurd.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  What’s “this”? that this Trump statement actually made any difference?
  - d23 5y ago
    That Trump's motivation for literally anything is anything but pure, raw self-interest. It had nothing to do with a fear of panic and everything to do with the number of ways he perceived it in his self-interest to continually deny this was even happening. He gaslit an entire nation. Judging by the comments I've seen here lately (not yours), I'm really starting to question the company I'm keeping here.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      >That Trump's motivation for literally anything is anything but pure, raw self-interest. You do realize that this is unprovable speculation shaped entirely by the filter of media coverage, which is clearly much more favorable to the biden administration? If our institutions are willing to mislead regarding covid, why would you trust them about any other politically charged subject?
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      Agree though I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive. Trump doesn’t like the look of panic because it would make him look bad. Or make the stock market tank, or whatever. I don’t for a second think that his desire to avoid panic was because that would be better for the country (I honestly don’t even think it occurred to him that that would be a valid excuse for downplaying).
specialist 5y ago
OC cites Denmark as role model. What's their citizen's level of trust in their institutions? Does Denmark have a thriving media ecosystem profiting from inciting distrust, outage, division? For the US, UK, Aus, I cannot imagine any increase in collectivism, social trust, esteem for the greater good while Murdock, Koch, Zuck, Dorsey, and so many others, remain utterly opposed.
reducesuffering 5y ago
March 2020: Masks are useless. Lied Mid-pandemic: Covid lab leak is a conspiracy theory. Lied Today: Previous covid infection natural immunity is same as unvax'ed. Still lying.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  I think you are confusing “statements and policy from available and changing information” with “lies”.
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    If that's consistent with reality, then what exactly does the CDC exist for if not to study if masks control disease? SARS-CoV2 isn't the world's first coronavirus by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that seemingly the whole country spent months debating whether masks can stop a virus tells us all we need to know, which is that organizations like the CDC fail. There's zero reason why we had to act like we were starting from scratch other than to trick people into not buying up masks. In fact, it had nothing to do with changing information because the information straight from the horse's mouth tells the contrary: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm?s_cid=mm7010e3_w#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm?s_cid=mm... ^^ See Table 1 That is at best around a 2% reduction in deaths associated with masks. For all intents and purposes, mask mandates can never stop the virus or even do much at all to reduce it. 2% would make me question whether there's even any meaningful causation. We have this information, but we decided to literally double-down by hilariously telling people to double-mask. This isn't the scientific method in action.
    - cloverich 5y ago
      *reduction after state mask mandates in the united states. It's an important distinction because mask mandates in the US were followed at varying levels, from relatively stringent to barely at all. Separately, I don't think anyone ever claimed masks (outside of a properly fitted n95) stop the virus, only that it reduces the spread. Lastly, if an area's hospitals have only a few open ICU beds available, then even 2% would be significant enough to warrant mandates in the future.
AtNightWeCode 5y ago
Denmark, the country where they dissect exotic animals at the zoo in front of children. Yes, they now how to deal with a political storm. They handled Covid very well with a good result so far. Congratulations for that! What happened in US was plain ignorance and had nothing to do with trying to come the masses. Yes, I am saying that Trump is a moron.
greenail 5y ago
While this thread is mostly a US centric discussion I wonder if Australia isn't a better case study for this topic. Seems like things are pretty intense there.
- anotherevan 5y ago
  From Melbourne, in the state of Victoria, Australia here. Currently in lockdown again. Last year, when there where huge amounts of unknown unknowns, our state premier stood up and did a press conference every day for 120 days straight. Every day of the week. In every one he stayed for as long as journalists and Murdoch media employees kept asking questions. He did quite a good job of explaining the reasoning behind decisions (IMO). The answers stayed consistent when asked eight different ways in a row, and from day to day. Decisions were following the science (like wearing masks is effective as reducing the amount of infections from an air-born pathogen, duh) and the counsel of the chief health officer (among many others, I'm sure). There are still daily press conferences going on, although they've mixed it up a bit with who is available - usually between the premier, the health minister, the chief health officer and a few others. We were successful in reducing community transmission to zero last year, and even beating back an initial outbreak of the Delta strain before it surged back and dug in roots. It required a huge effort of societal and political will and cooperation to achieve. We are now relying on vaccination to open back up. (Unfortunately Australia has been a bit slow off the mark with vaccinations, in part because we managed to have such low infection rates. In part...) The two main milestones in our staged open up are when 70% and then 80% of the population aged 16 and above have been fully vaccinated (two doses). At current vaccination rates we are looking to hit those milestones in Victoria on Oct 22 and Nov 1 respectively[1]. As of today[0], 73% of the total Victorian population have received at least one vaccination, and 50% fully vaccinated with two doses[2]. Of those who can avail themselves of a vaccine (those aged 12 or above) those numbers go up to 85% and almost 59%. Currently we have vaccines approved for use for people aged 12 and above. (Provisional approval for Pfizer for ages five to eleven happened today, however that will take some time pass through the various bureaucracies before doses start going into arms). [0] Wed 13 Oct 2021 [1] https://covidlive.com.au/vic https://covidlive.com.au/vic [2] https://covidbaseau.com/vaccinations/ https://covidbaseau.com/vaccinations/
mensetmanusman 5y ago
The decision to lie to the public about masks fearing an N95 shortage for healthcare workers has been the biggest disaster in many minds. Ideally the government would have owned up and said: ‘wups we were supposed to be stockpiling these for the last 10 years when this topic came up in a disaster planning scenario (it did), but we didn’t do that and now there is no way we will have enough for many years because industrial supply chains are never operated at <10% capacity without government subsidies(wups #2). Make cloth masks work in the mean time but they are 10x less effective than masks with built in static charged fibers, so the best you can do is socially distance and keep your activities out doors when you can.’ We see the reverberation today, with people still wearing cloth masks and governments not stockpiling for the next pandemic (would rather have one extra tank than available supply for every citizen).
- infini8 5y ago
  Hopefully one day we have transparent governments like this. In many respects the Danish government did a great job in dealing with the pandemic compared to the blunder it was in the UK. If it's the public's trust you require... Rule 1 - don't lie to them Rule 2 - don't lie to them Rule 3 - don't go against the very rules you set out for the public
- thedingwing 5y ago
  > would rather have one extra tank than available supply for every citizen I think the problem here is that the Big Tank industry is paying kickbacks, but the Big Mask industry is not.
- krolley 5y ago
  Maybe honesty would have been better, but at the beginning when nobody knew how bad the pandemic was going to be, I'm sure almost everybody would have stockpiled as many of the "better" masks as they could get their hands on.
01100011 5y ago
Even before Covid, the scientific and medical community, understandably so, decided that continuing dialogue with anti-vaxxers and vaccine hesitant wasn't worth the effort. Communicating the risks of vaccines, however negligible, seems to be seen as enabling the nutjobs. It's unfortunate. I think COVID may force the educated folks to reexamine their communication strategies and hopefully lead us to a place where anti-vax sentiment shrinks to a negligible level. Edit: Not surprising this is being downvoted. Anytime I suggest anything less than crucifying anti-vaxxers or sending them to a leper colony the HN crowd freaks out. It's that exact sort of sentiment that got us into the mess where a significant portion of the country refuses to get vaccinated. Don't hurt your arm patting yourselves on the backs folks. Your dismissive attitude towards less educated people has the practical effect of killing folks.
NoblePublius 5y ago
My local government seems to be dedicated to the opposite: instilling panic about Covid, particularly with rules around protecting children (who are effectively immune from serious illness and transmit the virus less than adults).
menacingly 5y ago
Well-meaning manipulation of the public is common, and nearly always a terrible idea, because even the relatively uneducated are still pretty good at applying their intuition and seeing that a narrrative doesn't make sense. Once they've damaged that trust, you end up with these 2 equally stupid polarized positions: A: "I will do the opposite of whatever the established authorities say" B: "It's, like, sad that, like, some people don't Science"
- dmingod666 5y ago
  Succinctly captures both the views.
bigodbiel 5y ago
Right now the CDC continues on its crusade against natural immunity, despite the dozens of studies proving otherwise. It’s understandable how public health policy has it pitfalls, but completely dismissing elementary biology is another shot in the foot.
- sk2020 5y ago
  "How can we put a meter on it?" -JP Morgan (he/him)
thepasswordis 5y ago
You know who doesn't try to hide this stuff from people? Bad actors. Conspiracy theorists, scammers, straight up liars. So you've got on one hand "the experts" who are being vague and seemingly not wanting to tell you anything, and then on the other hand you've got the crazies who will tell you whatever you want to hear. It's something that is increasingly frustrating me about the vaccines. The vaccines have become a political battle. You've got the president saying absolutely ridiculous things like "we are losing our patience with the unvaccinated". I got phone calls immediately after that speech from my conservative friends and family members pissed off at me (who is on a different political quadrant than they are), wanting to know if I was "losing my patience" with them, and explaining how they are NEVER going to take the vaccine. How they now see this as an important idealogical battle that they want to win. Conservatives are sharing videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TSZMtSPX3iE&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TSZMtSPX3iE&feat... Where it's Dr. Fauci starting off saying "The vaccine is 100% safe and 100% effective!" (a lie, obviously), and as the video continues that number goes down and down and down. It was the same last year when he said that we needed something like 70 or 80% antibody presence to reach herd immunity, but then was quoted in a more private interview saying that was basically a white lie, and that we wouldn't be in the clear until nearly 100%. THAT got shared among the conservative spaces, and basically erased ANY credibility that Fauci had going forward. -- I wish they would just say: Covid sucks. Yes, it almost certainly leaked out of a lab in China. Yes it was gain of function research. Yes this is the worst industrial disaster in the history of the planet. Yes we did say masks didn't work. It was a lie to keep the masks available for doctors. Yes the vaccines do have dangers associated with them, but for many people that danger is probably less than the danger of covid. Yes there are alternative treatments that show some effectiveness in cohorts, but not in RCTs. No we don't know why. We aren't sure if the lockdowns are actually effective, but we think it's worth it to try them. We aren't sure if the masks are actually effective but we think it's worth it to try them. The vaccine is available to you and free if you want it. This is a huge privilege you get because you live in the richest country in the world. Basically your access to the vaccine is an example of how kickass the USA is. Just stop freaking lying to people. It's making the problem 100x worse!
- LivelyTortoise 5y ago
sm0ss117 5y ago
The evidence says that during disasters ppl come together and help each other during disaster while state and business institution act in an at best obstructionist and at worst predatory way. So why do ppl in power believe the exact opposite? The simple explanations are that it's a delusion they actually hold, or a lie they project and either way it serves as a justification for the systems they benefit from.
coryfklein 5y ago
As a grown man, I have never been treated more like a child than during this pandemic. And that infuriates me.
menimax 5y ago
When people with money start to pay for fake vaccine certificates is the time for majority to ask why they pay for not getting something, that is given for free. Or like - everyone should take our vaccine - me:no i did't took it yet :), Like - Coke is a poison to sell, not to take. - guess who's remembered for saying that.
motohagiography 5y ago
Kind words, but possibly too late, and they won't change anyones mind. Authorities have forfeited public trust by co-ordinating to decieve people, censor them, and then reward others who publicly expressed their contempt for their fellow citizens, just to maintain the leverage. I do not see the path to reconciliation yet. Destroying millions of businesses and then doubling down by attacking guarantees of freedoms (speech, movement, association, bodily integrity, etc.) will not be remembered as having been justified or proportionate. People without a lot of dignity and integrity have underestimated what the impact of their deception has been, because, really, I don't think they were equipped to apprehend it. I know some of them personally, and they became strident promoters of narrative-right-or-wrong because of their impostor syndromes, anxiety, depression, and self loathing. They thought that by renouncing their remaining dignity and denouncing their neighbours, they could find redemption in compliance. What surprises me most is that the rhetoric in public forums has not spilled over into significant coordinated mutual violence yet. It's all still in the provocateur stage. Whether that materializes as a pervasive low-level long term conflict over decades like The Troubles in Ireland, or accelerated conflict like that which occurred in Bosnia in the 90s, the inflection point on the path toward outcomes analogous to those appears to have already passed and I believe we're into a period of managing consequences. At this point, the only meaningful action is to find a way to mitigate the effects of western civil conflict, and then by extension, the total world war that results as other countries rush into the power vaccuum western domestic instability creates. Maybe the article recognizing the deception will give some of these people an out where there is still a way to turn it around, but if I were a betting man, I'd find a way to get long potable water. Dark times.
- Permit 5y ago
  > will not be remembered as having been justified or proportionate. Why not? Do you think there’s no chance that the majority of people _want_ these things and will remember them as justified and proportionate? Where do you get this confidence? Do you think there’s a chance you have projected your own feelings about the pandemic restrictions onto others? You’re surprised that there is no civil unrest. Consider the possibility there is no unrest because other people want the restrictions that you detest.
moistly 5y ago
Disappointed to see so much bald-faced lying in the comments. I really don’t understand why the most egregious liars aren’t given the boot.
- rc2634 5y ago
  Because HN wants to treat its users as adults who can judge for themselves whether they should or shouldn’t believe something they are reading? Why do you want to censor and stifle discussions that could possibly convert the person telling the lie because of some misunderstanding to change their views and accept a different perspective?
  - moistly 5y ago
    Note my use of the word “egregious.” Thank you. The egregious liars have no desire to change their views. They desire to misinform and distract you, to waste your energies, to obfuscate truthful and valuable discussion. They are poison to informed discussion.
cat_plus_plus 5y ago
How about the biggest dishonesty - lack of admission that not everyone is at the same risk and that lockdowns have significant irreversible costs for low risk individuals and for society? Young children are not getting critical development years back. Healthy 20 somethings only have limited time to date, party and have fun before being saddled with adult responsibilities forever. Most of shattered local businesses are not coming back. While pandemic was not the only reason for BLM and Jan 6 riots, all the young men not being kept busy and receiving stimulus checks to support unproductive activities was certainly a contributing factor - and the fallout permanently damaged trust we have in each other. What of all the deaths of despair - suicides and drug overdoses? Mixed cancer diagnoses because people were scared to go to see doctor? Plummeting birth rates? All of this adds up to the fact that optimum precautions for an obese 70 year old guy is not a same as for a healthy 19 year old woman, and individuals should have a role in deciding what's right for them. While vast majority should take a vaccine, there may be a small group for whom it's a reasonable choice to hold off. Say you are a 19 year old healthy make and your risk from serious vaccine side effects is largest while your risk from COVID-19 is smallest. Plus, you already recovered from COVID during the time Delta variant was common. Are you really bonkers for making a decision either way? Above all, society must not sacrifice its young for those of us who had a chance to live for quite a bit already.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  My goodness, what a selfish take. God forbid 20 somethings miss out on some party time. Meanwhile, people who need medical care (many of them not elderly) can't get it because the hospitals are choked with covid patients.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Gen X and older don't have the moral high ground when it comes to selfishness. You know what's selfish? Selling the nation's economy to boost the stock market and pad your nest egg while collecting social security, then writing article after article ad nauseam about how spoiled Millennials are because they dared to eat an avocado with their breakfast. The lockdowns and mandates are just one more example of generational warfare where the powers that be force the younger generations to sacrifice for the older generations that have already sucked dry every resource they possibly can. I am so sick of Boomers and their ilk destroying the environment, destroying the economy, undermining democracy, defunding education, sending us into a two-decade war without a strategy or exit plan while collecting dividends from war profiteers, enslaving us in Ponzi schemes masquerading as social safety nets, forcing us into unemployment while racking up national debt we will have to pay back, and unconstitutionally placing the entire country under house arrest without charges, counsel, trial, or jury, all while brazenly lying to our faces about masks ("the typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus"), lockdowns ("two weeks to flatten the curve"), the origin of COVID ("Clearly Not a Lab Leak"), conflicts of interest ("NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan") and so many others it's impossible to keep track. Western liberal democracy was founded on the simple premise that freedom is inherent, not merely a privilege doled out by the government — that we shall die on our feet before living on our knees. The nations of the world seem to have forgotten this these past two years, and forced — sometimes with violence — their own citizens to sacrifice their freedom with no end in sight. Wanting to feel loved is not selfish. Wanting to work is not selfish. Wanting to see your friends, your family, is not selfish. Stealing the right to pursue life — real life, not just the continuation of breathing — that is what's selfish.
a0-prw 5y ago
TlDr: Trust engenders trust
sjwalter 5y ago
Dick Thaler, who won a Nobel prize in econ, wrote a book called Nudge (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book for more info), which I'd bet good money Fauci and the entire public policy elite have read and internalized. The book is basically about how the ruling class should think about structuring policy and messaging to create the outcomes they desire--"choice architecture". Thaler's work describes how public policy "experts" should frame their messaging such that us sheep submit to their will. Notably, nothing in the book is about how to make public policy to benefit the actual people--the built-in assumption is that our rulers have the unique ability to see the future that is best, and this book simply describes how to achieve that future. Honesty is not a consideration in itself--it is only one factor among many in considering second- and third-order consequences of particular messaging techniques and policy actions. Our (that is, the peoples') "best interests" don't factor into their thinking one single iota. If anyone thinks any of this pandemic crap has anything to do with helping people, at least as far as the rulers go, I feel so sorry for them.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I'll go mask off: yeah, I think "nudging" is probably necessary in a country where 45% of people legitimately believe in ghosts and 30% believe they've interacted with one before. You've got to be in a serious intellectual bubble to be thinking that most people are carefully considering the options and making the best choices for themselves.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    I think the point of view that nearly half of your fellow citizens aren't capable of making good choices is pretty silly. I think sane citizens supporting patriarchal rulers, especially when those rulers have proven themselves basically selfish and untrustworthy, their shameless behaviour openly on display for decades, is super surprising. By the way, that's Thaler's own description: patriarchal. He views the ruling class as basically responsible for cajoling and nudging an unruly mass of unthinking golems toward some future state. It seems you're a big fan of this patriarchs. Seems strange to support that unless you're part of the ruling class. If so, more power to ya, if not, can I ask why you think they're qualified in any way to do this nudging? Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally?
boopmaster 5y ago
The response in the USA was so comically bad! “Well there’s no research to support that spitting in each other’s mouths is a bad idea, so I could not advise against it” That’s not a real quote, but typifies the ludicrously moronic vein of thinking that was doled out as public advisory. It was intentionally obtuse, with not even a vague resemblance of insight or good judgement.
GuB-42 5y ago
Sweden also trusted the public, they had many times more deaths than the surrounding countries (Finland, Norway, Denmark), and closer to mainland Europe. You simply can't compare countries. Some countries have different levels of trust of their governments, different customs, different densities, different borders, etc... Most of Denmark by population is a small island, and by their culture, people tend to keep their distances. It is also a rather rich, homogenous country with a good welfare program. The policy to "trust the public with hard truths" may (or may not) be good for Danemark, maybe not for another country. I live in France. We are not Danes. We don't trust our government, and anything is ground for protests. We can also panic, I noticed it first hand. So we have a part of the population panic buying toilet paper while the other part is protesting, and while I don't particularly like our government, I kind of sympathize with them, we are not making it an easy task. Ah and we are famously anti-vax too. We are also a well connected country, at the center of western Europe, so of course we have more cases, and I don't thing "telling the hard truth" would have changed anything. We do have a decent welfare system though. So, I'd like to say that "trusting the people" is a good strategy, but really, it depends on the people in question, and many other factors. Every country is doing its best with what it has, even if it doesn't look like it, and we can't generalize.
xkbarkar 5y ago
I feel the discussions i. the thread are of better quality and more informative than this ignorant opinion piece. All he seems to claim is that if governments had trusted the public they would have locked down sooner. The headline make this sad little piece seem more interesting than it actually is.
lborsato 5y ago
Thank you all for one of the most calm, reasonable, and rational discussions I have seen in the past two years.
sjg007 5y ago
Mask policy has always been consistent with the available data. They work but the effect is limited. This is why we have focused on multiple mitigation strategies. The problem we have is that because masks are not 100% effective people have decided that no masks are acceptable. Same flawed logic about vaccines.
Barrows 5y ago
I have to admit that you have shown a great insperation in this wonderful site. I understood that we should teach a tactical approach in every learning opportunity that we received even in our own ways of learning before teaching technical skills and showing the result to others to come up for successful and contented result and through this i was able to modify each poject that i have specialy this one for u >> Thanks !! https://www.prepaidcardstatus.biz/ https://www.prepaidcardstatus.biz/
hatmatrix 5y ago
There is another element alluded to in the article, which is to communicate uncertainty of outcomes. There is a large segment of the population - and I'm assuming the size can vary by country - who do not deal well with uncertainty and will latch onto a person giving a clear and uncertain message, even if factually incorrect.

510 points by hncurious 5y ago

I've shared this story multiple times, because it was such a poignant example of what can go wrong when truth becomes secondary to an agenda: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28411734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28411734

etchalon 5y ago

While I appreciate the articles thrust, I think any article which compares any other country to America fails to recognize that a weirdly high percentage of Americans seem to have a distinct distrust in government. It was exaggerated in this pandemic because the person whom that group has come to place a lot of trust in (Trump) was telling them that they shouldn't listen to anyone but him, and that everything was fine.

hyperpallium2 5y ago

Part of the long-term program to breed out distrust of authority. It doesn't affect elites, who can choose sensibly without trust, because they have time, training and access to information.

rob_c 5y ago

Thanks for posting. It's a terrible shame society has torn itself apart before we could learn the (to some) obvious lesson, but at least maybe this will inform policy in the future... That or governments are now more terrified of people losing their minds and so feel they should be even more controlling in their fear response as a knee jerk reaction.... Either way, in the UK we failed to save about 67% of those who could have been saved through bad practice and even worse policy...

jerf 5y ago
There's two aspects to this, I think. One is true protectionism. My objection to this is that if we perhaps had superhumans guiding us mere humans, they might be capable of modulating our information flow to protect us, but mere humans lack this power. Indeed, let's be honest, being a politician is if anything a counter-indicator in being the sort of person capable of dealing with the real issues that arise in a crisis. The truth is government isn't really capable of modulating information flow to a society for their own good or protection. I think a lot of people implicitly and in an unexamined way tend to assume that "the government" is populated by some sort of superhumans, but they're just people. Relative to the enormous problems they face, even their training or experience they may have doesn't necessarily put them that far ahead of normal people, who aren't all unskilled yokels out in the fields trying to figure out how to keep their sheep in the pen or something. The other aspect is the abuse of information flow to consolidate, create, or simply exercise power, since "information is power" is not really a metaphor. It goes beyond merely being incapable to outright reprehensible that our "trusted" leaders would use the opportunity of having this sort of information in a life-and-death situation for such crass purposes, and there ought to be consequences for them, personally. Either way, we have once again demonstrated that there really isn't a compelling reason to be keeping information from people.
- rob_c 5y ago
  Broadly after seeing some of the material coming out of the UK "think tanks" in early 2020 this was really "govt, starched collar, upper class" thinking that the proles will start eating themselves if we even mention that there's a chance they could die. I think projected compliance with a lockdown in the UK was initially estimated and serious attempts were made to model it at 40% compliance. When govt got near 95%+ compliance during the first lock down other idiots took over behind the scenes, patted themselves on the back and decided why not go for "zero-covid" in 2020... Edit: (I'm not joking there is a statement on record from politicians reacting to the suggestion with "this is not Asia, people would not stand for a lockdown", aka we expect that as policy to not be able to function) AKA the first lockdown being a success in the UK was a great statement of how the people behave that had damming effect on the direction of health policy. Heard immunity would have been reached much quicker and the 2020 winter less bad had more healthy people been exposed in the start and summer of 2020. The fact that lockdown and rules were followed so well actually made the winter worse than the initial (sensible) projections predicted.
  - mulvya 5y ago
    > there is a statement on record from politicians reacting to the suggestion with "this is not Asia, people would not stand for a lockdown" Fauci said that in Feb 2020. -------- Q. How confident are you that the Chinese are doing what needs to be done? A. They're doing things that have completely broken the paradigm of how you respond. They have been, in a draconian way, shutting down everything. They have locked down 50 million people, including the entire 11 million-person city of Wuhan. They will not allow anyone into Beijing unless they have a 14-day quarantine. They're essentially locking people who test positive in their houses. I mean, they're doing things that are almost unheard of in the annals of public health. Q. Will it work? A. As unusual and extreme as it is, it might actually, ultimately, have an effect. There's this report that the number of new cases for the last couple of days in China has gone down. I don't put much strength in that unless I see it really start to come down and down and down. A few days of going down doesn't mean anything to me. But if it continues to go down, that might be a signal that they're having an effect of what otherwise would be extreme means. Q. That would never happen here, would it? Locking down 50 million people? A. No, not a chance. It would never happen. -------- https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/17/new-coronavirus-what-dont-we-know-dr-anthony-fauci-q-a-opinion/4790996002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/17/new-corona...
UncleOxidant 5y ago
> governments are now more terrified of people losing their minds The empirical evidence from the covid experience seems to justify their fears that a segment of the population will lose their minds.

AzzieElbab 5y ago

Inconsistent PR is just a peek at the giant cesspool of incompetence and corruption that we get when epidemic is managed by people who are better suited to discuss warning labels on cigarets

xkbarkar 5y ago

Wow an entire thread full of civil opposing opinions and discussions. I feel sanity has returned.

newaccount2021 5y ago

when I hear the CDC director talking honestly about the correlation between obesity and covid outcomes, I'll agree that we are finally embracing hard truths (cue predictable HN responses citing an outlier marathon runner who died of covid)

ltbarcly3 5y ago

Edit: before you downvote this, read it? I'm not an anti-vax nutcase. They didn't trust the public with their actual thinking at any point during Covid. The guidance was initially "don't wear a mask, it will make it worse because you'll infect yourself with your hand" to "we'll just lock down for 3 weeks and then back to normal" to "we have to flatten the curve to avoid overwhelming hospitals" to the current policy of basically 0 covid tolerance. Why would they initially tell us to not wear masks? The generous answer is that they were afraid that a run on masks would make them unavailable to medical professionals who as far as we knew at that point needed them to survive. The uncharitable answer is that the people giving advice are imbeciles who hadn't even read the national plan to respond to respiratory pandemics. The most ridiculous part of our COVID response, at least where I am in the USA, is that we have a very detailed national plan that tells policy makers exactly how to respond to such an event. It was made following SARS (another coronavirus), and it is very good, and you can even read it online! It was completely ignored of course. (You can find an up to date version here, originally published in 2011: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid-pandemic-plan.pdf https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid-pandemic-plan.pdf ) My daughter's school just went back to 100% at-home via zoom because 'too many children had positive covid tests'. How many had positive tests? What is the threshold or flow-chart for this decision defining what 'too many' means? Was this decision made with guidance or following guidelines given by public health experts operating under the umbrella of a national (or state, or county, or even school district) strategy? Hah! As if anyone would answer any of these questions! The answer is that 'too many' cases of covid means they close the schools 'for awhile'. The part that concerns me isn't just the lack of transparency, it is that behind the lack of transparency there is nothing there, it's just a non expert going with their gut or responding to pressure from hysterical parents. If we want to 'trust science' that starts with 'consulting scientists'!

rob_c 5y ago
Not knowing where you're from sounds like you're commenting on the UK policy at least (I'm sure it parallels others)... Speaking from an unfortunate position of experience a lot of this is driven (in the UK) by whitehall asking deliberately leading questions which are politically charged of civil servants and scientists. aka, there is a difference between, "what do we have to do to reduce deaths due to X this summer" and "what do we have to do to eradicate X this summer"... It's a shame that once these decisions had been made that only then the questions were asked. This is what comes from introducing data illiterate driven morons into the heart of politics, they don't understand the minutia of modelling, don't understand statsistics, and they abuse anything they find or read to a political end. </rant>

woliveirajr 5y ago

As almost everything that is written now, almost-post-pandemic, the survival bias isn't disregard. When images come from China welding building's doors, everybody shouted. When government in Brazil said to skip the Carnival to avoid the covid from tourists, lots complained. Now, looking back, is easy to say that one specific opinion was the best and would be perfect, had it been followed. Just remember those million other opinions that were terrible and be thankful that the worst ones weren't followed.

MikeTaylor 5y ago

SIDE-ISSUE ALERT! The article ends with the statement "The author declares no competing interests". I think this is very poor phrasing, as it's ambiguous: does it mean "The author has not declared any competing interests", or "The author has positively declared that there are no competing interests"? (To be clear, I am not for a moment suggesting any hidden interests on the part of the author, and I think his point is both correct and important. It's only the wording that I dislike.)

timr 5y ago
This is a stock phrase used by the journal. The author didn't write the words, he just checked a box on a form.
gameshot911 5y ago
To me it's not ambiguous - it means the latter.
mechanical_bear 5y ago
This is some bike shedding of the top tier variety.

colordrops 5y ago

The article is discussing the media and government being intentionally vague or even misinformative because they don't trust the public, but it backfires and causes more distrust. The flip side that wasn't discussed is the belittling and censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives, which engendered even more distrust. Their strategy of information control backfired, and they doubled down. Now we've got a huge swath of US citizens that will never take the vaccine.

WhisperingShiba 5y ago
And thats a good thing too. Don't reward poor behavior with compliance.
- neogodless 5y ago
  It's trivially easy to understand that getting a vaccine that benefits you, as well as the people around you, is good for the people around you, much more so than it is good for someone you're protesting against. And not getting the vaccine is potentially bad for you, and those around you, much more so than it is bad for anyone you're protesting against. The vaccine helps your body fight the virus, and reduce the spread of the virus in your local community. That should be the key point in deciding if you get a vaccine.
  - andrewclunn 5y ago
    That's just the thing though, isn't it. Is the vaccine good for you and the people around you? Since we know asymptomatic carriers are a thing, does getting the vaccine protect those around you? Are you even able to get reliable reporting on the side effects (of various shots) and what groups are likely to be at risk for them? Assuming a disagreement about reality is a disagreement about values is a great way to straw man without knowing it.
- jjwiseman 5y ago
  That's got real "I'm not taking the safe, free, incredibly effective vaccine to own the libs" energy.

bastardoperator 5y ago

I agree with the sentiment of this article, but I'm noticing that some folks can't determine fact from fiction even when presented with data that supports the facts or makes them irrefutable. No amount of logic, facts, or transparency will be enough for these folks, and while I can appreciate a skeptic, some of these people are beyond basic help and need professional guidance.

specialist 5y ago
Our current epistemological crisis has been decades in the making. The modern No Knowings utterly reject facts, truth, objectivity. Aka Nihilism.
DuskStar 5y ago
This is of course true for people on both sides of the political aisle, but for different subjects.
- mc32 5y ago
  Quite. I watched a debate between Scott Horton and Bill Kristol. Watching Kristol remain steadfast in his position despite all evidence is pretty amazing. Horton wasn’t perfect either but at last he had evidence on his side.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
It certainly does not help that search will cater to whatever it is you are looking for with helpful articles supporting just about any viewpoint. To your point, if there is no helping 'these folks', the logical conclusion is to take guardrails down and let god sort them out. I will admit I am still coming to terms with all this.
mmmpop 5y ago
It feels like a game of political chicken to me. Like, "if you won't trust the voting public enough to give them the whole truth and instead treat them like blubbering fools, how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?" So instead of compliance, they'll bring the whole damn thing down in protest. I don't think the plurality of those who refuse the vaccine actively deny the existence of the virus, or even the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. I feel they're just absolutely sick of the hypocrisy and pandering by "leaders" who refuse to lead by example on much of anything. As many before me have said, you'll always have the kooks that deny science but I honest-to-God think those are the minority.

Workaccount2 5y ago

You would think they would have learned from the war on drugs propaganda

bedhead 5y ago

Hard truths and politics aren't compatible because there's too much incentive misalignment. People in power have no reason to tell the truth because it'll get them fired, and the reason for that is most people don't even want the truth anyhow, it triggers some form of pain. The path of least resistance inevitably seems to be lying in some form.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Ignoring the truth also triggers pain... it just comes a bit later.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  correlation is not causation if they ve already forgotten what caused it. People are really not good at being governed

guscost 5y ago

COVID lesson: Never trust the high-priesthood of professional science with political decisions.

Ensorceled 5y ago
Do you believe Dr. Fauci was calling the shots last year in 2020?

wonderwonder 5y ago

The author is completely right in that the government at least in the US attempting to downplay, mislead or 'avoid panic' absolutely destroyed any credibility and is still suffering from it. Most people are not stupid, if provided with all available information as well as clear statements regarding the reliability of that information and just a clear message saying "hey this is new and we have no idea, we are making our best guess" people will make decent choices. Unfortunately the US decided to torpedo its credibility, and all sides decided to turn it into a political issue which a pandemic should very much not be. All politics all the time and the US is now crippling itself. In the absence of real honest leadership people turned to the loudest voices of the media. Once the people distrust the government and think they are lying its very hard to appeal to their logic again. I am very much not a fan of Bush II but he did it right after 9/11. What he did after though is a topic for another day.

Gortal278 5y ago
> Most people are not stupid, if provided with all available information as well as clear statements regarding the reliability of that information and just a clear message saying "hey this is new and we have no idea, we are making our best guess" people will make decent choices Citation needed
- zarkov99 5y ago
  Perhaps we should try being honest with each other next time? Certainly lying did not work out very well.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  People are not stupid when their immediate interest is threatened. Now, we could argue that people as a whole have problems with estimating risk ( they do ) and predicting long term consequences ( they do ), but they can usually notice when a politician is telling them its raining, when said politician is directly pissing at them. Then again, I am from the old country, where parents ingrain in you distrust for the government. By comparison, US population really does trust its decision-makers. Or maybe trusted, if the article is to be believed.

veltas 5y ago

> Covid lesson: tell the truth. Thanks for sharing this novel concept, in a scientific journal no less.

ISL 5y ago

From CDC's Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (2018): 1. Be First 2. Be Right. 3. Be Credible. 4. Express Empathy. 5. Promote Action. 6. Show Respect. https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/manual/index.asp https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/manual/index.asp

g42gregory 5y ago
I personally find these principles coming from CDC, against the backdrop of their actions lately, very hypocritical.
lamontcg 5y ago
The big problem is what to do when "Be Right" is vague because information is poor and you're dealing with a society where black and white thinking is rampant. Combined with a largely complete lack of understanding of the actual messiness of the scientific method.
- cloverich 5y ago
  It's as easy as saying "X seems like the best bet, because Y, but we need more evidence (which we'll get via Z around time T) to be certain".
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    The problem is that a good chunk of society views science as it should be infallible and its a failure if its not. And scientists tend to default to "50-50" kinds of language when they're dealing with uncertainty, and tend to overly emphasize uncertainty. I'd kind of like to see science communicators start talking in the language of sports betting when it comes to uncertainty instead.
- supertrope 5y ago
  http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

CivBase 5y ago

There are still many people - especially in the US - who are concerned about (or adamantly opposed to) receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. While this is often framed as a conservative-vs-liberal issue within the US, that doesn't line up with the data. Vaccination rates seem to correlate more strongly with a group's trust in the government. Conservatives do tend to have less trust in the government than liberals, but the difference is even more pronounced when comparing affluent groups to historically marginalized groups - regardless of political leanings. Trust is hard to earn and easy to spend. But it is an invaluable resource for a government to have. Hopefully we learn that some day.

veltas 5y ago

What are the hard truths?

calebm 5y ago
Vaccines are not risk-free.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  No one said they weren't
  - switch007 5y ago
    They certainly weren't talking about the risks and side effects when telling the entire country the only way to get your life and rights back is to take the vaccine. The message was: get the vaccine, get the vaccine, get the vaccine, do your moral duty
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      Because the risks of not getting the vaccine are orders of magnitude higher than the risks of getting the vaccine. It's absolutely insane that were still having this conversation at this point.
      - HideousKojima 5y ago
        Not for young people
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        Yes, even for young people. Even when you look at the side-effects of the vaccine, they tend to be more common among people who get the virus. For example, myocarditis is several times more common among young people who get CoVID-19 than among young people who get vaccinated.[1] Given that everyone is eventually going to get infected or vaccinated, getting vaccinated probably significantly decreases the risk of myocarditis among young people. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y

dehrmann 5y ago

Fauci (and the CDC) lying about masks out of fear it would cause a shortage for healthcare providers burnt a lot of trust quickly. It probably helped the US get into the polarized situation it's in now.

nobody9999 5y ago
>Fauci (and the CDC) lying about masks out of fear it would cause a shortage for healthcare providers burnt a lot of trust quickly. It probably helped the US get into the polarized situation it's in now. This confuses me. If the claim that masks "don't work" caused folks to distrust public health authorities, then why are many of the folks who claim to distrust those PH authorities refusing to wear masks?
- d23 5y ago
  This thread is full of bizarre, depressing contradictions. I'm having trouble processing that this many people in this community think this way.
- joshuaissac 5y ago
  Because once they lose their credibility, everything they say will be viewed with distrust. > If the claim that masks "don't work" caused folks to distrust public health authorities I would say it is more the contradictory messaging that caused the distrust, than the initial claim that masks do not work.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I would say it is more the backtracking that caused the distrust. And so, if I say "gravity does not exist" and then turn around and say that the effect we call "gravity" accelerates matter at 9.8 meters per second per second, that means "the effect we call gravity" doesn't exist? That's a strange way to look at it, IMHO.
    - themaninthedark 5y ago

smoe 5y ago

I think the other hard truth that citizens don't get entrusted with, is that we don't really know how to deal with a pandemic in the modern globalized world. Sure, some countries had plans and scenarios made before, but nonetheless got caught with their pants down. E.g Switzerland doing a nationwide epidemic simulation back in 2013, identifying serious flaws in preparedness, but not acting on it at all. And even if, it would most likely not have panned out as neatly as predicted. We haven't dealt with a situation like this before, so things are going to be messy. Opinions changing as more information comes in, not necessary the most effective measure being taken, coordination among countries not working, people fighting for attention etc. I reckon it's going to take a couple years of analysis to be able to look back and with more certainty say what would have been the optimal way to deal with it for different regions and what the right tradeoffs might have been.

Ensorceled 5y ago
Canada's Dr. Tam said at the beginning of the pandemic that we were in pretty good shape because we learned important lessons from SARS. And then we promptly ran low on PPE. And told everybody that masking was not important because there was no evidence that there was airborne transmission.
CaptainMarvel 5y ago
The UK similarly did simulations five years ago [0], but didn’t act on the findings from those either. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/07/coronavirus-report-warned-of-impact-on-uk-four-years-before-pandemic https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/07/coronavirus...

tunesmith 5y ago

One of the variant ideas I was stuck on was when the government and CDC decided (pre-Delta) to tell everyone that masks weren't required in stores if you were vaccinated. Part of the justification was that they thought it would create incentive for the unvaccinated to get vaccinated, since the carrot was that they could stop wearing masks afterward. Regardless of whether that had the desired effect or not, it seemed to be another example of being too clever by half, rather than just sticking with what the data itself suggested.

neogodless 5y ago
> tell everyone that masks weren't required in stores if you weren't vaccinated. I assume you've got a typo going on here? You mean "were vaccinated"?
- tunesmith 5y ago
  yes, thanks.

kyrra 5y ago

WSJ has a commentary piece in today's paper that is similar but also important. The jist I get out of it is that science is ever evolving and there is no "trust the science", as it just gives us data and is not an absolute truth. Science can provide varying levels of certainty on given part of a subject, but running around and invoking science for policy decisions is a bad plan when there isn't solid data backing it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/partisan-science-antiscience-facts-misrepresentation-fauci-lancet-lab-leak-11633960740 https://www.wsj.com/articles/partisan-science-antiscience-fa... Mirror: https://archive.is/GwRw1 https://archive.is/GwRw1

shockeychap 5y ago
"One had better be scrupulously honest before asking people to surrender their own judgment and simply believe what they are told." Couldn't have said it better myself.

r00fus 5y ago

The lede is buried here, the reason the US is not cohesive is entirely due to the former president who continues to this day to support and spur the anti-vax movement.

gojomo 5y ago
By... getting vaxed himself? Why aren't the vax campaigns leading with Trump's action – and his repeated verbal endorsement of choosing to get vaxed – to overcome resistance in his followers? Such over-focus on Trump is a pathological scapegoating to deflect responsibility on the part of both the professional permanent bureacracies, and the current administration. Trump did awfully, yes. But the mistrust & errors spring from far deeper cultural issues, and repeated failures by the public health officials - in their mixed-messages, manipulative exagerrations, & arbitrary punitive actions. Vax resistance is at some of its highest levels in urban minority communities with no love for Trump.
- JamisonM 5y ago
  "Pathological scapegoating" of the guy that has literally said "No, that’s okay. That’s all right. You got your freedoms".
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  > Why aren't the vax campaigns leading with Trump's action – and his repeated verbal endorsement of choosing to get vaxed – to overcome resistance in his followers? If you go to trump community sites you'll find out that: 1. They think he's an idiot for taking the vax 2. They think he was threatened to taking it 3. He didn't really take it
  - gojomo 5y ago
    Interesting. But if they're that persistently delusional, even when Trump's actions & words are contrary to their beliefs, are their actions "entirely due" to Trump? The phenomena you describe suggest it's bigger & deeper than any devotion given him. (Is it even fair to call them "Trump community sites" at that point?)

Gunax 5y ago

So what were the lies? I guess I just stop not see it. Surely we can agree there is a difference between lying and jist being wrong.

zz865 5y ago

One problem is there really is some risk with the vaccine. At a population level its best if everyone takes the vaccine - there are huge benefits, but unfortunately a small minority gets hurt. Its best if everyone else gets vaccinated except for me. Of course when everyone wants to be that exception the vaccination doesn't stop community spread so people get sick. The problem is the hard truth of "take the risk because society benefits" doesn't work in an American me-first mentality.

lamontcg 5y ago
But there's a bigger risk with the virus. The selfish calculus should also be to get vaccinated.
- adevx 5y ago
  That is a sweeping generalisation. Covid19 targets a very select group disproportionately, being young and healthy changes the risk dynamics significantly.
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    As a hockey fan what I see is that at least 4 NHL players have had their careers badly harmed or ended by COVID-19, that's not a very big pool of people, of which only some small proportion have been infected - that has changed my perception of the risk dynamics significantly.
- rc2634 5y ago
  The calculus is different for tens of millions people who acquired natural immunity from previous infections before the vaccines even existed. I am one of them. There is no good reason for me to take the risk with the vaccines because it will only increase my immunity marginally.
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    I think the evidence available today contradicts this position. Vaccine immunity is much better than naturally acquired immunity, and natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is much better still.

nineplay 5y ago

Honestly this is a pretty hand-wavy article from a respected journal and I think represents the kind of thing we need less of, not more of His actual research is pretty sparse and comparing the Danish government to every other government glosses over any number of correlation/causation issues. Yet it gets cited and quoted and everyone jumps on it as confirmation of everything they believed before they read it. People need to start questioning the articles that they _agree_ with. If nothing in the article challenges your beliefs, if nothing in the research or conclusions surprise you or makes you consider things differently in any way, than it deserves more skepticism, not less. A whole lot of sites are generating a whole lot of clicks and making a whole lot of money by the simple process of validating their audiences beliefs. It is unimaginably destructive.

mnglkhn2 5y ago

Nature are the ones who published the paper dismissing the lab origin of the virus. So, not much credibility there either.

avgcorrection 5y ago

Here’s something funny about the discourse around distrust of the government. The problem is often framed as a being about the distrust per se: “we want the public to trust the goverment but they don’t. Why is that?” But this provokes the question: how trustworthy is the government, objectively speaking? At first it might seem like there is a hidden premise: yes, the government is trustworthy. But there’s also another alternative: that’s besides the point. Are Corn Flakes really healthy? Well that’s not a concern for the marketing department. But it is their concern if people don’t think that Corn Flakes are healthy. So, the funny part: the discourse around distrust-of-government might betray a manipulative agenda. The talking heads want people to trust the government but they don’t seem concerned with whether or not it is rational to trust the government. But any honest assessment of trust has to compare two things: 1. How much the thing is trusted 2. How trustworthy it is (by some standard) How rational (1) is is based on how much it differs from (2) -- there is no way to assess trust in a vacuum (without (2)). The old phrase “manufacture of consent” comes to mind.

d23 5y ago

> Former US president Donald Trump admitted to playing down the risks of the coronavirus to “reduce panic”. The entire premise of this is absurd.

alkonaut 5y ago
What’s “this”? that this Trump statement actually made any difference?
- d23 5y ago
  That Trump's motivation for literally anything is anything but pure, raw self-interest. It had nothing to do with a fear of panic and everything to do with the number of ways he perceived it in his self-interest to continually deny this was even happening. He gaslit an entire nation. Judging by the comments I've seen here lately (not yours), I'm really starting to question the company I'm keeping here.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    >That Trump's motivation for literally anything is anything but pure, raw self-interest. You do realize that this is unprovable speculation shaped entirely by the filter of media coverage, which is clearly much more favorable to the biden administration? If our institutions are willing to mislead regarding covid, why would you trust them about any other politically charged subject?
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Agree though I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive. Trump doesn’t like the look of panic because it would make him look bad. Or make the stock market tank, or whatever. I don’t for a second think that his desire to avoid panic was because that would be better for the country (I honestly don’t even think it occurred to him that that would be a valid excuse for downplaying).

specialist 5y ago

OC cites Denmark as role model. What's their citizen's level of trust in their institutions? Does Denmark have a thriving media ecosystem profiting from inciting distrust, outage, division? For the US, UK, Aus, I cannot imagine any increase in collectivism, social trust, esteem for the greater good while Murdock, Koch, Zuck, Dorsey, and so many others, remain utterly opposed.

reducesuffering 5y ago

March 2020: Masks are useless. Lied Mid-pandemic: Covid lab leak is a conspiracy theory. Lied Today: Previous covid infection natural immunity is same as unvax'ed. Still lying.

alkonaut 5y ago
I think you are confusing “statements and policy from available and changing information” with “lies”.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  If that's consistent with reality, then what exactly does the CDC exist for if not to study if masks control disease? SARS-CoV2 isn't the world's first coronavirus by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that seemingly the whole country spent months debating whether masks can stop a virus tells us all we need to know, which is that organizations like the CDC fail. There's zero reason why we had to act like we were starting from scratch other than to trick people into not buying up masks. In fact, it had nothing to do with changing information because the information straight from the horse's mouth tells the contrary: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm?s_cid=mm7010e3_w#T1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm?s_cid=mm... ^^ See Table 1 That is at best around a 2% reduction in deaths associated with masks. For all intents and purposes, mask mandates can never stop the virus or even do much at all to reduce it. 2% would make me question whether there's even any meaningful causation. We have this information, but we decided to literally double-down by hilariously telling people to double-mask. This isn't the scientific method in action.
  - cloverich 5y ago
    *reduction after state mask mandates in the united states. It's an important distinction because mask mandates in the US were followed at varying levels, from relatively stringent to barely at all. Separately, I don't think anyone ever claimed masks (outside of a properly fitted n95) stop the virus, only that it reduces the spread. Lastly, if an area's hospitals have only a few open ICU beds available, then even 2% would be significant enough to warrant mandates in the future.

AtNightWeCode 5y ago

Denmark, the country where they dissect exotic animals at the zoo in front of children. Yes, they now how to deal with a political storm. They handled Covid very well with a good result so far. Congratulations for that! What happened in US was plain ignorance and had nothing to do with trying to come the masses. Yes, I am saying that Trump is a moron.

greenail 5y ago

While this thread is mostly a US centric discussion I wonder if Australia isn't a better case study for this topic. Seems like things are pretty intense there.

anotherevan 5y ago
From Melbourne, in the state of Victoria, Australia here. Currently in lockdown again. Last year, when there where huge amounts of unknown unknowns, our state premier stood up and did a press conference every day for 120 days straight. Every day of the week. In every one he stayed for as long as journalists and Murdoch media employees kept asking questions. He did quite a good job of explaining the reasoning behind decisions (IMO). The answers stayed consistent when asked eight different ways in a row, and from day to day. Decisions were following the science (like wearing masks is effective as reducing the amount of infections from an air-born pathogen, duh) and the counsel of the chief health officer (among many others, I'm sure). There are still daily press conferences going on, although they've mixed it up a bit with who is available - usually between the premier, the health minister, the chief health officer and a few others. We were successful in reducing community transmission to zero last year, and even beating back an initial outbreak of the Delta strain before it surged back and dug in roots. It required a huge effort of societal and political will and cooperation to achieve. We are now relying on vaccination to open back up. (Unfortunately Australia has been a bit slow off the mark with vaccinations, in part because we managed to have such low infection rates. In part...) The two main milestones in our staged open up are when 70% and then 80% of the population aged 16 and above have been fully vaccinated (two doses). At current vaccination rates we are looking to hit those milestones in Victoria on Oct 22 and Nov 1 respectively[1]. As of today[0], 73% of the total Victorian population have received at least one vaccination, and 50% fully vaccinated with two doses[2]. Of those who can avail themselves of a vaccine (those aged 12 or above) those numbers go up to 85% and almost 59%. Currently we have vaccines approved for use for people aged 12 and above. (Provisional approval for Pfizer for ages five to eleven happened today, however that will take some time pass through the various bureaucracies before doses start going into arms). [0] Wed 13 Oct 2021 [1] https://covidlive.com.au/vic https://covidlive.com.au/vic [2] https://covidbaseau.com/vaccinations/ https://covidbaseau.com/vaccinations/

mensetmanusman 5y ago

The decision to lie to the public about masks fearing an N95 shortage for healthcare workers has been the biggest disaster in many minds. Ideally the government would have owned up and said: ‘wups we were supposed to be stockpiling these for the last 10 years when this topic came up in a disaster planning scenario (it did), but we didn’t do that and now there is no way we will have enough for many years because industrial supply chains are never operated at <10% capacity without government subsidies(wups #2). Make cloth masks work in the mean time but they are 10x less effective than masks with built in static charged fibers, so the best you can do is socially distance and keep your activities out doors when you can.’ We see the reverberation today, with people still wearing cloth masks and governments not stockpiling for the next pandemic (would rather have one extra tank than available supply for every citizen).

infini8 5y ago
Hopefully one day we have transparent governments like this. In many respects the Danish government did a great job in dealing with the pandemic compared to the blunder it was in the UK. If it's the public's trust you require... Rule 1 - don't lie to them Rule 2 - don't lie to them Rule 3 - don't go against the very rules you set out for the public
thedingwing 5y ago
> would rather have one extra tank than available supply for every citizen I think the problem here is that the Big Tank industry is paying kickbacks, but the Big Mask industry is not.
krolley 5y ago
Maybe honesty would have been better, but at the beginning when nobody knew how bad the pandemic was going to be, I'm sure almost everybody would have stockpiled as many of the "better" masks as they could get their hands on.

01100011 5y ago

Even before Covid, the scientific and medical community, understandably so, decided that continuing dialogue with anti-vaxxers and vaccine hesitant wasn't worth the effort. Communicating the risks of vaccines, however negligible, seems to be seen as enabling the nutjobs. It's unfortunate. I think COVID may force the educated folks to reexamine their communication strategies and hopefully lead us to a place where anti-vax sentiment shrinks to a negligible level. Edit: Not surprising this is being downvoted. Anytime I suggest anything less than crucifying anti-vaxxers or sending them to a leper colony the HN crowd freaks out. It's that exact sort of sentiment that got us into the mess where a significant portion of the country refuses to get vaccinated. Don't hurt your arm patting yourselves on the backs folks. Your dismissive attitude towards less educated people has the practical effect of killing folks.

NoblePublius 5y ago

My local government seems to be dedicated to the opposite: instilling panic about Covid, particularly with rules around protecting children (who are effectively immune from serious illness and transmit the virus less than adults).

menacingly 5y ago

Well-meaning manipulation of the public is common, and nearly always a terrible idea, because even the relatively uneducated are still pretty good at applying their intuition and seeing that a narrrative doesn't make sense. Once they've damaged that trust, you end up with these 2 equally stupid polarized positions: A: "I will do the opposite of whatever the established authorities say" B: "It's, like, sad that, like, some people don't Science"

dmingod666 5y ago
Succinctly captures both the views.

bigodbiel 5y ago

Right now the CDC continues on its crusade against natural immunity, despite the dozens of studies proving otherwise. It’s understandable how public health policy has it pitfalls, but completely dismissing elementary biology is another shot in the foot.

sk2020 5y ago
"How can we put a meter on it?" -JP Morgan (he/him)

thepasswordis 5y ago

You know who doesn't try to hide this stuff from people? Bad actors. Conspiracy theorists, scammers, straight up liars. So you've got on one hand "the experts" who are being vague and seemingly not wanting to tell you anything, and then on the other hand you've got the crazies who will tell you whatever you want to hear. It's something that is increasingly frustrating me about the vaccines. The vaccines have become a political battle. You've got the president saying absolutely ridiculous things like "we are losing our patience with the unvaccinated". I got phone calls immediately after that speech from my conservative friends and family members pissed off at me (who is on a different political quadrant than they are), wanting to know if I was "losing my patience" with them, and explaining how they are NEVER going to take the vaccine. How they now see this as an important idealogical battle that they want to win. Conservatives are sharing videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TSZMtSPX3iE&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TSZMtSPX3iE&feat... Where it's Dr. Fauci starting off saying "The vaccine is 100% safe and 100% effective!" (a lie, obviously), and as the video continues that number goes down and down and down. It was the same last year when he said that we needed something like 70 or 80% antibody presence to reach herd immunity, but then was quoted in a more private interview saying that was basically a white lie, and that we wouldn't be in the clear until nearly 100%. THAT got shared among the conservative spaces, and basically erased ANY credibility that Fauci had going forward. -- I wish they would just say: Covid sucks. Yes, it almost certainly leaked out of a lab in China. Yes it was gain of function research. Yes this is the worst industrial disaster in the history of the planet. Yes we did say masks didn't work. It was a lie to keep the masks available for doctors. Yes the vaccines do have dangers associated with them, but for many people that danger is probably less than the danger of covid. Yes there are alternative treatments that show some effectiveness in cohorts, but not in RCTs. No we don't know why. We aren't sure if the lockdowns are actually effective, but we think it's worth it to try them. We aren't sure if the masks are actually effective but we think it's worth it to try them. The vaccine is available to you and free if you want it. This is a huge privilege you get because you live in the richest country in the world. Basically your access to the vaccine is an example of how kickass the USA is. Just stop freaking lying to people. It's making the problem 100x worse!

LivelyTortoise 5y ago

sm0ss117 5y ago

The evidence says that during disasters ppl come together and help each other during disaster while state and business institution act in an at best obstructionist and at worst predatory way. So why do ppl in power believe the exact opposite? The simple explanations are that it's a delusion they actually hold, or a lie they project and either way it serves as a justification for the systems they benefit from.

coryfklein 5y ago

As a grown man, I have never been treated more like a child than during this pandemic. And that infuriates me.

menimax 5y ago

When people with money start to pay for fake vaccine certificates is the time for majority to ask why they pay for not getting something, that is given for free. Or like - everyone should take our vaccine - me:no i did't took it yet :), Like - Coke is a poison to sell, not to take. - guess who's remembered for saying that.

motohagiography 5y ago

Kind words, but possibly too late, and they won't change anyones mind. Authorities have forfeited public trust by co-ordinating to decieve people, censor them, and then reward others who publicly expressed their contempt for their fellow citizens, just to maintain the leverage. I do not see the path to reconciliation yet. Destroying millions of businesses and then doubling down by attacking guarantees of freedoms (speech, movement, association, bodily integrity, etc.) will not be remembered as having been justified or proportionate. People without a lot of dignity and integrity have underestimated what the impact of their deception has been, because, really, I don't think they were equipped to apprehend it. I know some of them personally, and they became strident promoters of narrative-right-or-wrong because of their impostor syndromes, anxiety, depression, and self loathing. They thought that by renouncing their remaining dignity and denouncing their neighbours, they could find redemption in compliance. What surprises me most is that the rhetoric in public forums has not spilled over into significant coordinated mutual violence yet. It's all still in the provocateur stage. Whether that materializes as a pervasive low-level long term conflict over decades like The Troubles in Ireland, or accelerated conflict like that which occurred in Bosnia in the 90s, the inflection point on the path toward outcomes analogous to those appears to have already passed and I believe we're into a period of managing consequences. At this point, the only meaningful action is to find a way to mitigate the effects of western civil conflict, and then by extension, the total world war that results as other countries rush into the power vaccuum western domestic instability creates. Maybe the article recognizing the deception will give some of these people an out where there is still a way to turn it around, but if I were a betting man, I'd find a way to get long potable water. Dark times.

Permit 5y ago
> will not be remembered as having been justified or proportionate. Why not? Do you think there’s no chance that the majority of people _want_ these things and will remember them as justified and proportionate? Where do you get this confidence? Do you think there’s a chance you have projected your own feelings about the pandemic restrictions onto others? You’re surprised that there is no civil unrest. Consider the possibility there is no unrest because other people want the restrictions that you detest.

moistly 5y ago

Disappointed to see so much bald-faced lying in the comments. I really don’t understand why the most egregious liars aren’t given the boot.

rc2634 5y ago
Because HN wants to treat its users as adults who can judge for themselves whether they should or shouldn’t believe something they are reading? Why do you want to censor and stifle discussions that could possibly convert the person telling the lie because of some misunderstanding to change their views and accept a different perspective?
- moistly 5y ago
  Note my use of the word “egregious.” Thank you. The egregious liars have no desire to change their views. They desire to misinform and distract you, to waste your energies, to obfuscate truthful and valuable discussion. They are poison to informed discussion.

cat_plus_plus 5y ago

How about the biggest dishonesty - lack of admission that not everyone is at the same risk and that lockdowns have significant irreversible costs for low risk individuals and for society? Young children are not getting critical development years back. Healthy 20 somethings only have limited time to date, party and have fun before being saddled with adult responsibilities forever. Most of shattered local businesses are not coming back. While pandemic was not the only reason for BLM and Jan 6 riots, all the young men not being kept busy and receiving stimulus checks to support unproductive activities was certainly a contributing factor - and the fallout permanently damaged trust we have in each other. What of all the deaths of despair - suicides and drug overdoses? Mixed cancer diagnoses because people were scared to go to see doctor? Plummeting birth rates? All of this adds up to the fact that optimum precautions for an obese 70 year old guy is not a same as for a healthy 19 year old woman, and individuals should have a role in deciding what's right for them. While vast majority should take a vaccine, there may be a small group for whom it's a reasonable choice to hold off. Say you are a 19 year old healthy make and your risk from serious vaccine side effects is largest while your risk from COVID-19 is smallest. Plus, you already recovered from COVID during the time Delta variant was common. Are you really bonkers for making a decision either way? Above all, society must not sacrifice its young for those of us who had a chance to live for quite a bit already.

rootusrootus 5y ago
My goodness, what a selfish take. God forbid 20 somethings miss out on some party time. Meanwhile, people who need medical care (many of them not elderly) can't get it because the hospitals are choked with covid patients.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Gen X and older don't have the moral high ground when it comes to selfishness. You know what's selfish? Selling the nation's economy to boost the stock market and pad your nest egg while collecting social security, then writing article after article ad nauseam about how spoiled Millennials are because they dared to eat an avocado with their breakfast. The lockdowns and mandates are just one more example of generational warfare where the powers that be force the younger generations to sacrifice for the older generations that have already sucked dry every resource they possibly can. I am so sick of Boomers and their ilk destroying the environment, destroying the economy, undermining democracy, defunding education, sending us into a two-decade war without a strategy or exit plan while collecting dividends from war profiteers, enslaving us in Ponzi schemes masquerading as social safety nets, forcing us into unemployment while racking up national debt we will have to pay back, and unconstitutionally placing the entire country under house arrest without charges, counsel, trial, or jury, all while brazenly lying to our faces about masks ("the typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus"), lockdowns ("two weeks to flatten the curve"), the origin of COVID ("Clearly Not a Lab Leak"), conflicts of interest ("NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan") and so many others it's impossible to keep track. Western liberal democracy was founded on the simple premise that freedom is inherent, not merely a privilege doled out by the government — that we shall die on our feet before living on our knees. The nations of the world seem to have forgotten this these past two years, and forced — sometimes with violence — their own citizens to sacrifice their freedom with no end in sight. Wanting to feel loved is not selfish. Wanting to work is not selfish. Wanting to see your friends, your family, is not selfish. Stealing the right to pursue life — real life, not just the continuation of breathing — that is what's selfish.

a0-prw 5y ago

TlDr: Trust engenders trust

sjwalter 5y ago

Dick Thaler, who won a Nobel prize in econ, wrote a book called Nudge (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book for more info), which I'd bet good money Fauci and the entire public policy elite have read and internalized. The book is basically about how the ruling class should think about structuring policy and messaging to create the outcomes they desire--"choice architecture". Thaler's work describes how public policy "experts" should frame their messaging such that us sheep submit to their will. Notably, nothing in the book is about how to make public policy to benefit the actual people--the built-in assumption is that our rulers have the unique ability to see the future that is best, and this book simply describes how to achieve that future. Honesty is not a consideration in itself--it is only one factor among many in considering second- and third-order consequences of particular messaging techniques and policy actions. Our (that is, the peoples') "best interests" don't factor into their thinking one single iota. If anyone thinks any of this pandemic crap has anything to do with helping people, at least as far as the rulers go, I feel so sorry for them.

whimsicalism 5y ago
I'll go mask off: yeah, I think "nudging" is probably necessary in a country where 45% of people legitimately believe in ghosts and 30% believe they've interacted with one before. You've got to be in a serious intellectual bubble to be thinking that most people are carefully considering the options and making the best choices for themselves.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  I think the point of view that nearly half of your fellow citizens aren't capable of making good choices is pretty silly. I think sane citizens supporting patriarchal rulers, especially when those rulers have proven themselves basically selfish and untrustworthy, their shameless behaviour openly on display for decades, is super surprising. By the way, that's Thaler's own description: patriarchal. He views the ruling class as basically responsible for cajoling and nudging an unruly mass of unthinking golems toward some future state. It seems you're a big fan of this patriarchs. Seems strange to support that unless you're part of the ruling class. If so, more power to ya, if not, can I ask why you think they're qualified in any way to do this nudging? Why do you think the outcomes they want are going to be good for you personally?

boopmaster 5y ago

The response in the USA was so comically bad! “Well there’s no research to support that spitting in each other’s mouths is a bad idea, so I could not advise against it” That’s not a real quote, but typifies the ludicrously moronic vein of thinking that was doled out as public advisory. It was intentionally obtuse, with not even a vague resemblance of insight or good judgement.

GuB-42 5y ago

Sweden also trusted the public, they had many times more deaths than the surrounding countries (Finland, Norway, Denmark), and closer to mainland Europe. You simply can't compare countries. Some countries have different levels of trust of their governments, different customs, different densities, different borders, etc... Most of Denmark by population is a small island, and by their culture, people tend to keep their distances. It is also a rather rich, homogenous country with a good welfare program. The policy to "trust the public with hard truths" may (or may not) be good for Danemark, maybe not for another country. I live in France. We are not Danes. We don't trust our government, and anything is ground for protests. We can also panic, I noticed it first hand. So we have a part of the population panic buying toilet paper while the other part is protesting, and while I don't particularly like our government, I kind of sympathize with them, we are not making it an easy task. Ah and we are famously anti-vax too. We are also a well connected country, at the center of western Europe, so of course we have more cases, and I don't thing "telling the hard truth" would have changed anything. We do have a decent welfare system though. So, I'd like to say that "trusting the people" is a good strategy, but really, it depends on the people in question, and many other factors. Every country is doing its best with what it has, even if it doesn't look like it, and we can't generalize.

xkbarkar 5y ago

I feel the discussions i. the thread are of better quality and more informative than this ignorant opinion piece. All he seems to claim is that if governments had trusted the public they would have locked down sooner. The headline make this sad little piece seem more interesting than it actually is.

lborsato 5y ago

Thank you all for one of the most calm, reasonable, and rational discussions I have seen in the past two years.

sjg007 5y ago

Mask policy has always been consistent with the available data. They work but the effect is limited. This is why we have focused on multiple mitigation strategies. The problem we have is that because masks are not 100% effective people have decided that no masks are acceptable. Same flawed logic about vaccines.

Barrows 5y ago

I have to admit that you have shown a great insperation in this wonderful site. I understood that we should teach a tactical approach in every learning opportunity that we received even in our own ways of learning before teaching technical skills and showing the result to others to come up for successful and contented result and through this i was able to modify each poject that i have specialy this one for u >> Thanks !! https://www.prepaidcardstatus.biz/ https://www.prepaidcardstatus.biz/

hatmatrix 5y ago

There is another element alluded to in the article, which is to communicate uncertainty of outcomes. There is a large segment of the population - and I'm assuming the size can vary by country - who do not deal well with uncertainty and will latch onto a person giving a clear and uncertain message, even if factually incorrect.