3 ms·

The science was always uncertain, the policy flip-flop was understandable, the absolutely fubar'ed PR is the nightmare fuel. Masks work. That was not the quest

by pas 5y ago

The science was always uncertain, the policy flip-flop was understandable, the absolutely fubar'ed PR is the nightmare fuel. Masks work. That was not the question. How much they help is the question of science. The cost-benefit decision is the question of policy. How to communicate the changing policy should have been the PR question. The US and international agencies that set policies are not as science-driven as they should be. ( https://www.slowboring.com/p/our-public-health-agencies-should https://www.slowboring.com/p/our-public-health-agencies-shou... ) Framing this as "lies" is counter-productive. Policy converging with science is mostly a good thing, but first that needs high quality science (= high quality data, asking the right questions, etc). The current US communication zeitgeist using "science" as a shorthand for "policy based on cost-benefit evaluation of such and such scientific reports by this and this community of experts and stakeholders" is a big problem, but it's a symptom of other bigger US social phenomena.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Science can say "by our current knowledge, the 'truth' is X" .... and then change their mind and say "Y".. The problem are the government mandates and policies based on ever changing science. Atleast in slovenia we had 4 vaccines (Astrazeneca, jannsen, moderna and pfeizer), and all four were marked as safe and effective for everyone. Then astrazaneca caused issues in neigbouring countries and then J&J killed a wife of our diplomat first (and a lot of blame was thrown around), and then a 20yo girl died, and we banned J&J, then the scandinavian countries stopped usage of moderna for younger people, and we've gone from four "safe and effective" vaccines to just pfeizer. If you're a vaccine skeptic, or even if not, but just a bit afraid to get vaccinated, and three out of the four vaccines that were "just yesterday" safe and effective, are now "not safe and effective" anymore, you don't think "the fourth one surely is safe and effective!", but stay unvaccinated and wait it out. I got vaccinated with J&J, because it was the most 'simple' choice back then, but soon after i needed a booster from pfeizer, because J&J isn't good enough... so all of the risks, basically none of the benefits. Add to this stories like this one (about the refugees), where countries are mandating locals to take the vaccine, but not refugees, and people get more and more skeptical.
clairity 5y ago
> "Masks work. That was not the question." no, 'masks work' is an extremely poor and politically-loaded statement (and as such, not a 'fact'). that phrase is meant to be thought-terminating, projecting false certainty, and curtly implies they work everywhere, all the time. instead, it should be something like 'masks are able to filter viable virus particles under the right conditions'. that kind of distortionary perspective has been used to mandate wearing masks in public spaces, where they almost always do exactly no good at all (no additional benefit beyond normal human behavior and interaction), and neglects to mandate that we wear them around friends and family (social situations) where masks might potentially filter some live (viable) virus from warm exhalation and/or from close and prolonged inhalation by the uninfected. as such, that usage/mandate is not for public health at all. it's political, for the individual, the reporter and the politician, to signal in-grouping and to apply counterproductive social pressure passive-aggressively (again, not to reduce spread, but to signal brainless obeisance).

by pas 5y ago

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Science can say "by our current knowledge, the 'truth' is X" .... and then change their mind and say "Y".. The problem are the government mandates and policies based on ever changing science. Atleast in slovenia we had 4 vaccines (Astrazeneca, jannsen, moderna and pfeizer), and all four were marked as safe and effective for everyone. Then astrazaneca caused issues in neigbouring countries and then J&J killed a wife of our diplomat first (and a lot of blame was thrown around), and then a 20yo girl died, and we banned J&J, then the scandinavian countries stopped usage of moderna for younger people, and we've gone from four "safe and effective" vaccines to just pfeizer. If you're a vaccine skeptic, or even if not, but just a bit afraid to get vaccinated, and three out of the four vaccines that were "just yesterday" safe and effective, are now "not safe and effective" anymore, you don't think "the fourth one surely is safe and effective!", but stay unvaccinated and wait it out. I got vaccinated with J&J, because it was the most 'simple' choice back then, but soon after i needed a booster from pfeizer, because J&J isn't good enough... so all of the risks, basically none of the benefits. Add to this stories like this one (about the refugees), where countries are mandating locals to take the vaccine, but not refugees, and people get more and more skeptical.

clairity 5y ago

> "Masks work. That was not the question." no, 'masks work' is an extremely poor and politically-loaded statement (and as such, not a 'fact'). that phrase is meant to be thought-terminating, projecting false certainty, and curtly implies they work everywhere, all the time. instead, it should be something like 'masks are able to filter viable virus particles under the right conditions'. that kind of distortionary perspective has been used to mandate wearing masks in public spaces, where they almost always do exactly no good at all (no additional benefit beyond normal human behavior and interaction), and neglects to mandate that we wear them around friends and family (social situations) where masks might potentially filter some live (viable) virus from warm exhalation and/or from close and prolonged inhalation by the uninfected. as such, that usage/mandate is not for public health at all. it's political, for the individual, the reporter and the politician, to signal in-grouping and to apply counterproductive social pressure passive-aggressively (again, not to reduce spread, but to signal brainless obeisance).