12 ms·

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing.

• dnautics 5y ago
  How can you be sure of your assertions? Have you done a randomized controlled trial? I don't think you have tested the alternative.
  • musingsole 5y ago
    The GP's point isn't something that is verified with controlled randomized data...And moreso, it's about what happens after the controlled trial. Communicating science is about taking it from a controlled lab and moving it into the real world where unfortunately politics purposefully muddies all the waters. The point is that WHO is a political organization with a political mission that needs science to get it done. While it employs and funds countless great scientists doing meticulous work...the people you will see and hear from at WHO are international politicians.
  • dekhn 5y ago
    romeros is right. public health people have to do third-order thinking to maximize the overall health impact. I haven't done RCTs but we studied them in detail in my stats class in grad school.
    • dnautics 5y ago
      no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public. Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?
      • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.
        • jacquesm 5y ago
          Precisely. Just observe the discussion about scientific theories and you can see firsthand that the public wants simple and clear black-and-white stuff (and to be told what to do) and not some kind of qualified statement that turns 99.9% certainty into something that can be spun as 50/50.
        • mistermann 5y ago
          What percentage of the public thinks in this way?
        • dnautics 5y ago
          You are bootstrapping your understanding of society on that assumption itself and thus begging the question. Do you actually get out and talk to people? Most people are ok with nuance. Most things we consume as entertainment, from lowbrow housewives of Atlanta to highbrow pbs space time are full of dizzying nuance and unknowable truths (but not star trek. Star trek no longer has nuance).
          • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
            We're fine with nuance in entertainment, in romance, in food, in professional team sports, in many things. I would dispute that the same level of comfort extends to "when elected (or not) leaders tell us what we should do."
• romeros 5y ago
  I need to clarify. I am not implying that WHO / CDC is lying outright. It's just that they have to be very careful and choose the right message to convey to the general public. It does mean you might have to downplay some things which might be true but will cause more harm than good if emphasized. I personally can never do that but I won't judge people who are in a situation where every thing they say has a huge impact on our collective future.
  • tqi 5y ago
    I think that rationale is patronizing nonsense. At best, this behavior is short-sighted and forgets erosion of trust is cumulative.
    • tillinghast 5y ago
      And yet…
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      Agreed it is patronizing. Knowing quite a few people, I'm not sure that isn't the right approach. People just want to get on with their lives, they don't want to know the degree of uncertainty behind decision x or y. And they'll believe anybody that tells them whatever they want to hear that allows them to get on with their lives. A guy like Fauci has very little choice: he can either lie, or he can cause a mass panic or a run on critical resources. The general public isn't going to hold back when they believe toilet paper or masks are going to be in short supply when they feel that they need them, restraint is for other people.
      • tqi 5y ago
        > he can either lie, or he can cause a mass panic or a run on critical resources Agree that Fauci was/is in a tough spot, but I think it's a mistake to conceptualize these decisions as a stage game as opposed to a repeated game. "Lying" or selectively emphasizing truths to achieve a specific outcome is borrowing against future trust in an effort to solve the present problem, and is suboptimal long term.
• deelowe 5y ago
  The public is much more capable of processing and understanding nuance than we give them credit for. It's just not as profitable for the MSM.
  • sampo 5y ago
    Yes. "COVID lesson: trust the public with hard truths" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02758-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02758-2
    • deelowe 5y ago
      I need to bookmark this for future discussions.
  • mr_overalls 5y ago
    Speaking of "the public" as a single entity is about as useful as approximating a curve with a straight line - i.e. unless it's the most trivial case, it's oversimplified to the point of being doomed to failure. The public is comprised of people with vast differences in cognitive ability, education, and scientific training. Most members of the public, even in highly educated countries, are easily fooled by a wide variety of logical fallacies, emotional manipulation, and statistical misdirection.
    • isoskeles 5y ago
      So why didn’t you post this reply one comment up when he calls the public morons? Instead you choose to correct the person who says the public is actually smarter than we think? I’m not implying you meant anything by it. But it should be noted that people here are arguing, and you’re coming down with a sort of correction that could be applied to either side of the argument. You appear to take a side by choosing this comment without any further nuance. Apologies if it sounds like I’m saying you’re doing something horribly wrong here, I just find this particular dynamic interesting in internet discussions. It happens all the time.
      • 5y ago
• coolso 5y ago
  > Likewise CNN made fun of Joe Rogan for taking Ivermectin because we don't want general public to experiment with alternative medicine. It's better to just stick to the proven stuff. Ivermectin is not alternative medicine. Ivermectin used for COVID symptoms is off-label use. CNN made fun of him because he dared stray from the official narrative and he dared try doing something through his own research rather than doing exactly as the government and media told him to do.
  • rootusrootus 5y ago
    If there's one thing I've learned over and over during this pandemic, it is that "do your own research" is immediately followed by a train of bullshit that only demonstrates extreme susceptibility to confirmation bias.
    • nomel 5y ago
      I did my own research and bought and wore masks when the CDC was saying they weren't needed. There was definitely "bullshit" involved there.
    • sampo 5y ago
      The first Western people protecting themselves with face masks, those were "do your own research" people. Before April 2020, the Western mainstream claimed/lied that masks don't work.
      • CRConrad 5y ago
        For values of "Western" equal to "the USA"?
    • Gibbon1 5y ago
      It's been a total parade of biases. In particular normalcy bias is a lot stronger than I'd thought it was.
    • coolso 5y ago
      Agreed. We should only ever listen to Authority Figures like CNN, the government, Snopes and Twitter. Bullshit-train-free.
• s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think this is a false dichotomy, you can have both.
• idrios 5y ago
  This is also why trust in these institutions is at an all time low. When your decision-makers are telling you lies and half truths for your own good, it becomes harder to know when they're telling the truth. This is the environment that causes fringe groups and theories to thrive.
  • seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Or why they don’t trust doctors in general, because medicine is a very inexact science filled with lies and half truths along with real truths? I get that might be unnerving to many (even if medicine is overall beneficial), but these people really sound like a classic case of “perfect is the enemy of good.”
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      A doctor I know described it like this: "Doctors are like monkeys with hammers trying to fix computers. We bang against stuff and will try a lot of things if we don't know what you've got. We may even get it right. But if you have a broken leg, an appendix that needs removal, a clear case of something that can be treated with anti-biotics, then we can perform small miracles." I don't know enough of the profession to estimate how accurate that statement is but it has colored my view.
      • robbiep 5y ago
        This is unfortunately fairly accurate. There is a deep and wide ocean of the things we know inexactly, and a growing pool of things we can work miracles on. However as the complexity of patients grows and the burden of disease shifts from infectious disease to chronic causes with lifestyle origins and aging, and anxiety - particularly in the teenage and young adults (a shift that has been underway at the top end for 30 years for the older part of the population, and since smartphones on the lower side! that the ocean is growing as well.
        • jacquesm 5y ago
          Thank you. I hold that person in very high regard and it stuck with me through the years as something that I see more and more confirmation of and yet, it seems to be a pretty harsh judgment. I wouldn't be any less harsh about my own profession though.
• listless 5y ago
  This is clearly satire and good satire at that. I’m sorry this site has not recognized this for the great social commentary that it is. You have my vote.
  • gruez 5y ago
    poe's law strikes again
• pdonis 5y ago
  > 1. Be 100% accurate and risk confusing people 2. Be strategic about it and for the greater good. Humans have a very poor track record at actually advancing any "greater good" when they choose option 2. In practice, "the greater good" turns out to be whatever helps those particular humans keep their power and status. That's why option 1 is the only acceptable one. > We need a narrative and the cost is accuracy. If this is actually true (I don't think it is), then our civilization is doomed. > We need to have more empathy for people who are the decision makers and have to make difficult choices. No, we need to stop thinking that certain people should be given the power to be "decision makers" and tell the rest of us what to do. The only acceptable thing for people in public health positions to do should be your option 1 above.
  • rootusrootus 5y ago
    I feel like your underlying assumption here is that the average human has a similar level of intelligence and critical thinking skills as the average HN community member. At the risk of coming across as extremely snobby, that just isn't true at all.
    • barbinbrad 5y ago
      Humility is the truth. Thus, the simple man has a higher level of intelligence and critical thinking skills than the average HN community member.
      • judahmeek 5y ago
        And why do you think the single man is more humble than the average HN community member?
        • pdonis 5y ago
          I don't know if the HN community member "rootusrootus" is "average", but his post certainly did not seem humble to me.
• tata71 5y ago
  > Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. Pharisees of the modern world. You will be the end of us. This line of thinking is a feedback loop, averaging down the social expectation closer to the lower bound every year. Slowing down the BS a bit, increasing free flow of information for a more informed generation following ours, is the only answer. tl;dr We will become stupider, and less critical-thinking, if we allow it.
• jacquesm 5y ago
  > Dr. Fauci knew that a lot of the things he was saying might not be 100% accurate and yet he did it. The reason being that on the whole his message was a net positive effect on the public. This is now milked for more than it is worth by those that would like to discredit him but at the same time have probably never held a position of some responsibility towards a populace that is ill equipped to deal with scientific uncertainty.
• mdavis6890 5y ago
  "Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. " I think this condescension does more harm than good. The "common man" is plenty smart enough to make decisions for themselves using reasonable judgement. They will make mistakes, but at a similar rate to the experts. A message of "we're not sure, but this virus seems to be transmitted mostly by air, and we thinks wearing a mask will probably help. We suggest you wear one when reasonably possible" will likely encourage a lot of people to wear masks, while a message of "OMG PANIC AND WEAR MASKS ALWAYS AND YELL AT PEOPLE WHO DON'T" is not likely to.
• merchantdice 5y ago
  why not have 2 levels? One for ACX level deep dives complete with assumptions, contingencies, and probability distributions and another for public consumption.