3 ms·

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

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.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      He may have been simply told what to say. The man strikes me as having integrity and trying to do the right thing even in impossible situations, such as being part of the Trump administrations' misdirection engine and refusing to buckle. That's the main reason the right wing of the United States hates his guts, he didn't sign the oath of loyalty. And was promptly replaced.
robbiep 5y ago
I’m not sure why you’re getting smoked with the DVs there, I agree with you, I think it’s true. Society has been so trained by political theatre and non-stop news channels for single answers that are capable of defying facts due to their non-life threatening nature that if a message isn’t straightforward, succinct, and unchanging then the messenger gets killed the moment it varies. Like politicians with the other side waiting for the slip up. Except unfortunately science doesn’t work like this because nature can’t be fooled and at the beginning we don’t have as clear facts as we would like to. And the process of zeroing in on clearer and more concise answers is confusing and scares the shit out of the average punter. And the media are excited to be able to have a messenger who continues to vary their message. It’s all a really sad state of affairs. I think WHO/CDC/Australian governments (really the only relevant one for me) and everyone else could have done a much better job but I feel I know why and how we ended up with such a communications disaster

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.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    He may have been simply told what to say. The man strikes me as having integrity and trying to do the right thing even in impossible situations, such as being part of the Trump administrations' misdirection engine and refusing to buckle. That's the main reason the right wing of the United States hates his guts, he didn't sign the oath of loyalty. And was promptly replaced.

robbiep 5y ago

I’m not sure why you’re getting smoked with the DVs there, I agree with you, I think it’s true. Society has been so trained by political theatre and non-stop news channels for single answers that are capable of defying facts due to their non-life threatening nature that if a message isn’t straightforward, succinct, and unchanging then the messenger gets killed the moment it varies. Like politicians with the other side waiting for the slip up. Except unfortunately science doesn’t work like this because nature can’t be fooled and at the beginning we don’t have as clear facts as we would like to. And the process of zeroing in on clearer and more concise answers is confusing and scares the shit out of the average punter. And the media are excited to be able to have a messenger who continues to vary their message. It’s all a really sad state of affairs. I think WHO/CDC/Australian governments (really the only relevant one for me) and everyone else could have done a much better job but I feel I know why and how we ended up with such a communications disaster