2 ms·

incorrect. during unpredictable situations it makes it MORE important to be consistent in communication. consistent communication could have been: boosters are

by jatone 5y ago

incorrect. during unpredictable situations it makes it MORE important to be consistent in communication. consistent communication could have been: boosters are recommended, we'll open them to relevant age groups in the future. though honestly they should have opened boosters to everyone in september and called it done. we knew then everything we needed to know. which are: 1. risks of the boosters. 2. average declines in protection.

haswell 5y ago
The impossibility of this is embedded in your opening paragraph. > during unpredictable situations Unpredictable: adjective - "not able to be predicted" > it makes it MORE important to be consistent in communication Consistent: adjective - "unchanging in nature, standard, or effect over time" If you wish to deliver a message that is accurate during a time that cannot be predicted and actively changes, you cannot do so and remain consistent without starting to misrepresent the truth. If you wish to deliver a message that is consistent during a time that cannot be predicted and actively changes, you cannot do so and deliver current/accurate information. In essence, your options are: 1. Be accurate/informative, but the message will change as the situation changes. 2. Be consistent, but the message either a) cannot contain any meaningful guidance or b) will be wrong
- jatone 5y ago
  it all depends on what particular detail wasn't able to be predicted. in this case the need for boosters. we knew by late june boosters would be needed. so all messaging after june should have been consistent. it wasnt. what wasn't predictable was when precisely we needed to issue boosters and to whom. because we simply didn't have the data on that until around september. However since september it was very predictable that we needed them for the holiday season. I got mine in early november because it was fucking obvious. omicron wasn't 100% assured but it was in the news and most sound bites were 'more contagious'. its entirely possible to be consistent in the face on unpredictable events. 1. outright say 'we don't currently have the information needed yet check back later' or 'worst case scenario would be X, we're going to start with those assumptions' 2. repeat step 1 until you have the data or know you never will 3. once data is acquired adjust statements. this is being consistent and clear. another example of this is masking and viral spread. 1. assume worst case for viral spread (airborne) 2. message masks are necessary until more is known about how the virus spreads. 3. if results come back disproving airborne spread, say so. instead we got: 1. masks not necessary. virus doesn't seem to be airborne. 2. OOPS VIRUS IS AIRBORNE. the first case is consistent, assume worst case and then ease restrictions. the 2nd case is completely inconsistent.

by jatone 5y ago

haswell 5y ago

The impossibility of this is embedded in your opening paragraph. > during unpredictable situations Unpredictable: adjective - "not able to be predicted" > it makes it MORE important to be consistent in communication Consistent: adjective - "unchanging in nature, standard, or effect over time" If you wish to deliver a message that is accurate during a time that cannot be predicted and actively changes, you cannot do so and remain consistent without starting to misrepresent the truth. If you wish to deliver a message that is consistent during a time that cannot be predicted and actively changes, you cannot do so and deliver current/accurate information. In essence, your options are: 1. Be accurate/informative, but the message will change as the situation changes. 2. Be consistent, but the message either a) cannot contain any meaningful guidance or b) will be wrong

jatone 5y ago
it all depends on what particular detail wasn't able to be predicted. in this case the need for boosters. we knew by late june boosters would be needed. so all messaging after june should have been consistent. it wasnt. what wasn't predictable was when precisely we needed to issue boosters and to whom. because we simply didn't have the data on that until around september. However since september it was very predictable that we needed them for the holiday season. I got mine in early november because it was fucking obvious. omicron wasn't 100% assured but it was in the news and most sound bites were 'more contagious'. its entirely possible to be consistent in the face on unpredictable events. 1. outright say 'we don't currently have the information needed yet check back later' or 'worst case scenario would be X, we're going to start with those assumptions' 2. repeat step 1 until you have the data or know you never will 3. once data is acquired adjust statements. this is being consistent and clear. another example of this is masking and viral spread. 1. assume worst case for viral spread (airborne) 2. message masks are necessary until more is known about how the virus spreads. 3. if results come back disproving airborne spread, say so. instead we got: 1. masks not necessary. virus doesn't seem to be airborne. 2. OOPS VIRUS IS AIRBORNE. the first case is consistent, assume worst case and then ease restrictions. the 2nd case is completely inconsistent.