2 ms·

In terms of public policy in an emergency situation, "trust the science" means "trust the science based on best evidence available right now." Even in ideal cir

In terms of public policy in an emergency situation, "trust the science" means "trust the science based on best evidence available right now." Even in ideal circumstances the science is rarely certain, and this is doubly true in an emerging pandemic involving a novel virus. So policy in those circumstances is always going to be made with significant uncertainties, and also significant differences of opinion. And it will, as you note, change when more evidence is uncovered---which is exactly what happened. The US CDC has been widely criticized for changing guidelines over time, for that very reason, that new information came to light as the pandemic continued. It's unavoidable in such an uncertain environment that, whatever is decided, there will be a significant faction that disagrees with the policy. It is also inevitable that there will be policy winners and losers---politicians are under heavy pressure to do something, and the nature of the threat dictates that they can't wait until the evidence is overwhelming. And if you're the loser in that scenario, you're going to feel like the "real science" was in your favor and ignored for political reasons. Aside from legitimate scientific disagreement, there is also the very human political phenomenon of anti-authoritarianism, in which there is a segment of the population that is predisposed to oppose government mandates of any kind, but particularly where they cannot directly observe the problem the mandates are designed to address. Most people in most places, at least here in the US, never directly experienced the kind of emergency that public pandemic policy was designed to avoid. Depending on your point of view, you can regard that as a success of the policy, or evidence that the policy wasn't needed. I think given the examples of places like northern Italy where the virus raged largely unabated, that the best evidence suggests that the former is the case.

yucky 5y ago
>"trust the science" means "trust the science based on best evidence available right now." That's an easier ask when we have reason to trust the CDC, Dr. Fauci etc. But when they embrace the concept of "the noble lie", that will obviously lead to people not trusting them.
- vannevar 5y ago
  Perhaps, if the CDC had lied. But they did not. Most of the distrust came from a) the policy shifts, which while justifiable based on emerging information, confused and disturbed people, and b) politically-motivated criticism from right-wing politicians.
  - yucky 5y ago
    > Perhaps, if the CDC had lied. But they did not. They absolutely did - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.htm...
raxxorrax 5y ago
More people would believe that if you communicate it exactly like that. "We are not sure how much protection masks do offer, but if you want to be cautious it is highly recommended to wear them and we are looking to mandate use in certain locations out of caution". Would not be too difficult and summoning a ghost just induces more mistrust. Another advantage of being honest here is that you can recall that policy without losing face. It also does not induce unrealistic expectations which will haunt you on other policies. > there is also the very human political phenomenon of anti-authoritarianism, in which there is a segment of the population that is predisposed to oppose government mandates of any kind I don't really see the disadvantages here to be honest and they wouldn't have much room for opposition.
- vannevar 5y ago
  If you listen to the interviews with the CDC officials, they generally did communicate it like that. But people often hear what they want to hear, and if they've heard a lot of skepticism about the CDC from trusted political leaders, they're going to listen to what those leaders say the CDC said, rather than what it actually said. The obvious potential disadvantage of a knee-jerk reaction against authority in an emergency is that many could die because a few people opposed any mandate out of misplaced principle. Whether you think that is relevant in this case depends on whether you understand what the true dangers were. I think most of the people opposed to masking and vaccine mandates simply never understood the epidemic beyond the immediate threat it presented to themselves personally. And of course public officials are responsible for a much bigger picture.

yucky 5y ago

>"trust the science" means "trust the science based on best evidence available right now." That's an easier ask when we have reason to trust the CDC, Dr. Fauci etc. But when they embrace the concept of "the noble lie", that will obviously lead to people not trusting them.

vannevar 5y ago
Perhaps, if the CDC had lied. But they did not. Most of the distrust came from a) the policy shifts, which while justifiable based on emerging information, confused and disturbed people, and b) politically-motivated criticism from right-wing politicians.
- yucky 5y ago
  > Perhaps, if the CDC had lied. But they did not. They absolutely did - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.htm...

raxxorrax 5y ago

More people would believe that if you communicate it exactly like that. "We are not sure how much protection masks do offer, but if you want to be cautious it is highly recommended to wear them and we are looking to mandate use in certain locations out of caution". Would not be too difficult and summoning a ghost just induces more mistrust. Another advantage of being honest here is that you can recall that policy without losing face. It also does not induce unrealistic expectations which will haunt you on other policies. > there is also the very human political phenomenon of anti-authoritarianism, in which there is a segment of the population that is predisposed to oppose government mandates of any kind I don't really see the disadvantages here to be honest and they wouldn't have much room for opposition.

vannevar 5y ago
If you listen to the interviews with the CDC officials, they generally did communicate it like that. But people often hear what they want to hear, and if they've heard a lot of skepticism about the CDC from trusted political leaders, they're going to listen to what those leaders say the CDC said, rather than what it actually said. The obvious potential disadvantage of a knee-jerk reaction against authority in an emergency is that many could die because a few people opposed any mandate out of misplaced principle. Whether you think that is relevant in this case depends on whether you understand what the true dangers were. I think most of the people opposed to masking and vaccine mandates simply never understood the epidemic beyond the immediate threat it presented to themselves personally. And of course public officials are responsible for a much bigger picture.