3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIf 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.