4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    Anecdotally this rings very true. Actually I'd be even more cynical than it. I know two people that were facing serious chronic health issues that were not readily diagnosed. They were treated like a hot potato between specialists. In one case it took nearly 2 year to arrive at a correct diagnosis and corrective action, which involved both medication and surgery. In the other case the person was moving into liver failure, and placed on the transplant list. Luckily a family friend worked for the same healthcare organization as an IT professional, and knew exactly what to do. She marched the patient into the ER, had her sit down in a wheel chair, and made it crystal clear that she was going to be a gigantic PITA until they found out what was killing the patient. Within the day they had a plausible answer, and confirmed it with lab results within the week as I recall. It shouldn't be this way, but unfortunately in US healthcare it is. Having an uncommon illness is an absolute nightmare, one that destroys entire families finances if not outright killing people.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      Terrifying that the liver transplant feels like a "let's try clearing your cache and cookies".
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > I don't know enough of the profession to estimate how accurate that statement is but it has colored my view. We see the medicine of 200 years ago as barbaric, and I can guarantee that people 200 years in the future will see today's medicine as barbaric. There is simply lots of room for improvement even if improvement has been made in the past, but why should that give us colored views of the whole field?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > There is simply lots of room for improvement even if improvement has been made in the past, but why should that give us colored views of the whole field? Especially since most of us -- most readers here do something computer-related, right? -- are ourselves in an (even more rapidly) evolving field of work, where what's "true" is constantly changing.
- ikr678 5y ago
  Add 'hard truths' to that list too. Lifestyle & diet have a huge impact on health, but a portion of the population refuse to acknowledge this or want to hear about it from their doctor.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
When the same people (and more) that are in the fringe groups try to create a storm of complaint when scientific/medical advice/understanding changes, it's non-trivial for decision-makers to figure out what to say.
- leppr 5y ago
  Scientific consensus didn't change on masks. It was known very early that they best prevent the spread of Covid. When Western governments lied to get around supply issues, while distracting people with quasi-religious rituals around hand hygiene, they not only caused preventable deaths among populations at risk, they planted the seed for long term education and trust issues. More than a year later westerners still have terrible understanding of how the virus spreads, terrible mask education, AND mistrust of health authorities. The antidote to misinformation isn't more misinformation, it's truth.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    To this day, Jaap van Dissel, the head of the RIVM maintains that masks do not work.
    - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917 https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917 I remember this guy. The specific claim was that he does not believe that masks will prevent new infections due to people not socially distancing and wearing them incorrectly, NOT that masks are ineffective. He concedes that the evidence suggests masks themselves work. I've seen this guy get cited in anti-vaxx circles, using extremely simplified claims. Of course when I bring up the fact that he advocates for social distancing, anti-vaxxers get angry at me.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Yes, there is some nuance there now, but it wasn't always so. That's his way of very slowly walking back his claims, a bit of a no true Scotsman, but now 'no true mask'. "masks don't work" -> "ordinary masks don't work" -> "ordinary masks don't work because people won't take other precautions when they wear masks" and so on. The damage was already done by the time he started with the qualifications and to this day 100's of thousands, if not millions of people will quote the head of the RIVM (correctly or not) to support their anti-mask (often coupled with anti-vaxx) stance. And social distancing + masks = better than social distancing without. Even Fauci called him to task about this, his response was that 'he would study their claims' (their claim: that masks do work). https://nos.nl/artikel/2350709-van-dissel-blijft-erbij-gewone-mondkapjes-hebben-weinig-effect https://nos.nl/artikel/2350709-van-dissel-blijft-erbij-gewon... When people like Jaap van Dissel cross the official line published by the country it immediately erodes the platform that we all depend on to get through this. From someone in his position one would assume a basic familiarity with the difference between official policy and scientific fact and when it is appropriate to take which viewpoint.

by idrios 5y ago

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.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  Anecdotally this rings very true. Actually I'd be even more cynical than it. I know two people that were facing serious chronic health issues that were not readily diagnosed. They were treated like a hot potato between specialists. In one case it took nearly 2 year to arrive at a correct diagnosis and corrective action, which involved both medication and surgery. In the other case the person was moving into liver failure, and placed on the transplant list. Luckily a family friend worked for the same healthcare organization as an IT professional, and knew exactly what to do. She marched the patient into the ER, had her sit down in a wheel chair, and made it crystal clear that she was going to be a gigantic PITA until they found out what was killing the patient. Within the day they had a plausible answer, and confirmed it with lab results within the week as I recall. It shouldn't be this way, but unfortunately in US healthcare it is. Having an uncommon illness is an absolute nightmare, one that destroys entire families finances if not outright killing people.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Terrifying that the liver transplant feels like a "let's try clearing your cache and cookies".
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > I don't know enough of the profession to estimate how accurate that statement is but it has colored my view. We see the medicine of 200 years ago as barbaric, and I can guarantee that people 200 years in the future will see today's medicine as barbaric. There is simply lots of room for improvement even if improvement has been made in the past, but why should that give us colored views of the whole field?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > There is simply lots of room for improvement even if improvement has been made in the past, but why should that give us colored views of the whole field? Especially since most of us -- most readers here do something computer-related, right? -- are ourselves in an (even more rapidly) evolving field of work, where what's "true" is constantly changing.
ikr678 5y ago
Add 'hard truths' to that list too. Lifestyle & diet have a huge impact on health, but a portion of the population refuse to acknowledge this or want to hear about it from their doctor.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

When the same people (and more) that are in the fringe groups try to create a storm of complaint when scientific/medical advice/understanding changes, it's non-trivial for decision-makers to figure out what to say.

leppr 5y ago
Scientific consensus didn't change on masks. It was known very early that they best prevent the spread of Covid. When Western governments lied to get around supply issues, while distracting people with quasi-religious rituals around hand hygiene, they not only caused preventable deaths among populations at risk, they planted the seed for long term education and trust issues. More than a year later westerners still have terrible understanding of how the virus spreads, terrible mask education, AND mistrust of health authorities. The antidote to misinformation isn't more misinformation, it's truth.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  To this day, Jaap van Dissel, the head of the RIVM maintains that masks do not work.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917 https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917 I remember this guy. The specific claim was that he does not believe that masks will prevent new infections due to people not socially distancing and wearing them incorrectly, NOT that masks are ineffective. He concedes that the evidence suggests masks themselves work. I've seen this guy get cited in anti-vaxx circles, using extremely simplified claims. Of course when I bring up the fact that he advocates for social distancing, anti-vaxxers get angry at me.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes, there is some nuance there now, but it wasn't always so. That's his way of very slowly walking back his claims, a bit of a no true Scotsman, but now 'no true mask'. "masks don't work" -> "ordinary masks don't work" -> "ordinary masks don't work because people won't take other precautions when they wear masks" and so on. The damage was already done by the time he started with the qualifications and to this day 100's of thousands, if not millions of people will quote the head of the RIVM (correctly or not) to support their anti-mask (often coupled with anti-vaxx) stance. And social distancing + masks = better than social distancing without. Even Fauci called him to task about this, his response was that 'he would study their claims' (their claim: that masks do work). https://nos.nl/artikel/2350709-van-dissel-blijft-erbij-gewone-mondkapjes-hebben-weinig-effect https://nos.nl/artikel/2350709-van-dissel-blijft-erbij-gewon... When people like Jaap van Dissel cross the official line published by the country it immediately erodes the platform that we all depend on to get through this. From someone in his position one would assume a basic familiarity with the difference between official policy and scientific fact and when it is appropriate to take which viewpoint.