7 ms·

>“We’re really talking here about two failures, not one,” says Sandman. “Being reluctant to change your mind, and being reluctant to tell people you changed you

>“We’re really talking here about two failures, not one,” says Sandman. “Being reluctant to change your mind, and being reluctant to tell people you changed your mind.” Like other public-health and scientific organizations, the WHO “are afraid of losing credibility by acknowledging that they got something wrong”, he says. Quite a good summary for the entire clusterfuck that was the pandemic response. I still cant wrap my head about the utter spineless idiocy. You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong, you do so by lying to protect your image despite knowing better. You being wrong isnt dependent on you acknowledging it. And the worst part, the more they kept lying the more they created a vocal minority who heavily drank the coolaid loosing the ability to even consider that the god like apparatus could be wrong.

xracy 5y ago
You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I agree the not changing your mind is worse, but they also describe this thing as being driven by consensus as doctors, so you're having to change a bunch of people's minds who think they're the very best at what they do. It's a serious failing of that setup. It's somewhat impressive that they ever changed their mind.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  I feel like bending into that with increased dishonesty only makes that worse though. There's only a 'gotcha' if you change your mind while pretending you were never wrong, if you explain what evidence changed your mind then there's not that much power in pointing out 'flip-flopping'. But at a deeper level, it shows that they should have been more careful with the messaging from the start. The actual message should have been "There's currently not enough evidence to say COVID is airborne" which is a lot easier to correct to "Actually, it appears that it is airborne" than going from saying it definitely wasn't and being completely wrong... The masks thing was also just crazy. Completely indefensible, claiming that "we had to lie because otherwise people would have panic-bought masks" just destroys trust even more into the future...
  - mjevans 5y ago
    People DID panic buy... every damned thing anyway. Particularly the toilet paper. I'm just glad my buying habits are to retain a stock of that anyway since I buy it at a warehouse store.
  - xracy 5y ago
    9/10 times if you flip-flop, the way it is communicated is not with that level of nuance. So you can absolutely change your mind the correct way with given data, and the way it's communicated is with a headline that says "CDC/WHO FLIP FLOPS ABOUT VIRUS". You don't get to decide how people respond to a flip-flop, so you're strongly incentivized to make them as quiet as possible because it's not valued in our society to learn from your mistakes. We just want people who were correct the first time. If you pick a stock, and it goes up you claim you know something about it. If you pick a stock and it goes down and then up, you still point to the stock that you got correct the first time. Also, if you read the article, it's not that they didn't think it was airborne. It was that they didn't believe in airborne viruses. The common wisdom was that viruses are too heavy to stay airborne long enough for them to think it possible to become sick from that.
- thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
  It’s certainly strange when people suddenly appear to have changed their mind, without explaining or acknowledging it. A little humility and explanation would help. If a pundit is making a scene of it, go on his show.
- KrishnaShripad 5y ago
  > You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I think you are talking about Fauci's flip-flop here. The point is not about his flip-flop on mask mandate. The point was about his confidence. You do not go and say confidently, on National TV, that masks don't stop the virus and that people should stop buying masks from stores as it is needed for emergency workers. Then turn around half a year later, after the pandemic is in full swing and say that masks are important as it stops the virus. Both times he said it he said that it is based on credible scientific evidence. This is what ticks people off. If you do not know something and have no facts to back up your claim, don't say it. If you want to still say it (as you don't want people to hoard masks), appeal to the people to not hoard masks out of fear as those masks are needed for the frontline workers. Better still, get the US Government to buy those masks or ban stores from selling masks to general public until you have equipped frontline workers. Then ease the ban. Do not lie by saying that masks don't prevent virus as it sends a negative message and reassurance that everything is fine. Then turn around half a year later and say it is dangerous! This sort of flip-flop is not acceptable to anyone. Especially when it comes to disaster response. You are an expert for a reason. People trust your words. You are in a position of power when it comes to your own field. Don't degrade/misuse that position. The reason WHO lost its credibility is because of it shutting down alternative takes, continuous flip-flops and ever changing directives/mandates. It would have been better if WHO started by saying "We don't know. It is a novel virus. We are still learning as we go along. We will issue directives as and when we get more information. Please note that these directives are temporary and only based on evidence we have right in front of us. If things change, we will keep you informed. We still aren't sure what to make of it". This is all WHO needed to do. This would have instilled a bit of fear yes (which in hindsight was actually needed to make lockdowns effective and mask mandates effective). You took away the "fear" factor at the very beginning of the virus outbreak and then when people got the message, you try to tell them to now start fearing the virus. Why would people buy your argument? And how many of them will take you seriously after such a drastic flip-flop? Rather than confidently put out statements that the virus isn't airborne or doesn't spread through contact WHO should have been honest from the start. That it doesn't know anything and is learning as we go along. That the virus maybe dangerous and that we have to be cautious. Another big one is that WHO announced it is not human-to-human transmissible: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China." There was no disclaimer to say that this investigation is ongoing. That this preliminary data collected will have a final investigation as well. That it can change as more data becomes available. Communication is key in disaster response. You do not say anything with 100% certainty if you do not know it to be true.
- nstart 5y ago
  I don't know if this has been tested, but I'd venture a guess that this has something to do with how one flip flops. Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". Changing this later to "This fact Y (that people were asking about, shh) is true. We won't mention that it contradicts X that much. We won't say we were wrong. We will say that as institution C Org, we have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise is wrong" VS Exhibit B: "We as A Org, have reason to believe that X is the most true thing we know given current knowledge. We acknowledge fact Y exists and are actively investigating it and its implications. For people searching for guidance, A Org recommends actions S,T, and U. We will continue to research and revise information where necessary" --- I feel like Exhibit A, which is something I see a lot from government entities (confirmation bias makes me want to add "in the US") makes a changing of mind a thing of pride since you've staked a bet on it. A bet which usually is condescending and says "I'm right, you're wrong" Exhibit B leaves the hatches open while still getting a firm message down based on today's knowledge. Sadly there's no A/B testing we can turn to to know which approach would be better. But just out of sensibility, I wish more entities engaged in the latter approach
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". I've noticed a pattern where people will take this as their default assumption, and even selectively read evidence to the contrary in order to maintain that assumption. For example, a while ago on HN[1], someone posted this link[2] about a CDC announcement titled "CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'". The claim was that the CDC director, Walensky, insisted that vaccinated people do not carry COVID and insisted that they were 90% protected against infection, and the CDC wouldn't walk back on those claims. However, when reading the article, it shows that the assumption that the CDC was using Exhibit A's method in their announcement was wrong, and the CDC actually used the more reasonable method in your Exhibit B: > Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 front-line workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March. > But more data is still necessary to say so definitively, which is why researchers are recruiting thousands of college students across the country to find out more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread of this virus among vaccinated people. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated...
- nabla9 5y ago
  The article was a good and balanced piece looking from the all aspects. Only thing you see is people picking only quotes that help to propagate the nihilist condemnation of WHO as corrupt and incompetent. The evidence for airborne transmission was really low quality at first. It's pretty normal, but very unfortunate, that people get primed to their early experience of new theory and can't see above it.
drewcoo 5y ago
Trust and truth are two very different things. It's possible to lose trust by telling the truth. So is it worth it to be less truthful? Is there good you can accomplish with that trust? I see what they're playing and the bind they're in. It's a very social kind of game. I'm just too simple to be there or have dealt with it.
- janto 5y ago
  I no longer trust them to tell the truth. Trust is what you earn when you prioritize truthfulness above all else. They decided to spend public trust to what end?
senectus1 5y ago
This is because science is being corroded by politics. Politics is being paralyzed by binarism. Everything is Right OR Wrong, left OR right, on OR off. there is no grey areas anymore.. there is no acceptable position that is in between or overlaps.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Hmmm... There are some grey areas. For example, in most spaces it's socially acceptable to wear one mask or two.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Disagree, plenty of organizations and people lost credibility in the eyes of some for doing just this as new research emerged over the course of the pandemic.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I agree with that. But I think there's a small gap in credibility loss between "being right in the first place" and "being wrong, but admitting it promptly". And a much larger gap between "being wrong, but admitting it promptly", and "being wrong, and refusing to admit it until everyone has known you were wrong for a long time".
  - j4yav 5y ago
    There's also the interesting "being right, but essentially having guessed and tied various other crackpot theories to the reasoning" that muddies the water further. For example, that COVID was always airborne, but it is actually the vaccine that causes it because the microchips they put in it have little propellers on them and they use them to fly around the room.
    - awb 5y ago
      Or, just as bad, making an unsubstantiated claim that turns out to be true down the road. Like saying: “X could be bad for you”, but offering no evidence, theories or studies. Then it turns out X does have some downsides. I don’t think you get any credit for having randomly guessed a correct answer.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Parent's point is that they'd lose these people's credibility either way by the mere fact of being wrong. To me the paths look like: - acknowledge your mistakes: some people will accept based on your attitude, others will resent you being wrong. - don't acknowledge: people who would have otherwise accepted mistakes now resent your stubbornness. Others will still resent you for being wrong.
3np 5y ago
Three, I think; being overconfident and not admitting uncertainty from the beginning (or lying from the start, depending on your interpretation)
dalbasal 5y ago
>> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong, you do so by lying to protect your image despite knowing better. You being wrong isnt dependent on you acknowledging it. Unfortunately, in the public/political realm, I think this isn't true. Flip flopping suggests weak morals. When scientific "facts" change, a lot of people conclude that the scientists know nothing.
- prox 5y ago
  “A lot of people” are also idiots. But that’s not new. Flip flopping for all the right reasons makes all the difference as G-man would say.
Krasnol 5y ago
Just today and yesterday our widely respected health minister here in Germany lost a lot credibility by changing his opinion. He said there would be no requirement for quarantine soon and changed it to "quarantine stays" a day later. All he did by that was alienating his biggest support group: vaccinated people. While the covidiots are cheering because "they knew it all along". We came out of this with a better solution but still...unnecessary loss of credibility. Next time people will think: I can ignore that, "they" will probably turn it around tomorrow. The art is to only talk if you're sure what you say.
watwut 5y ago
> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Unfortunately, you do. It is something that could change and should change. But as of now, changing mind is treated as "gotcha".
simonh 5y ago
> the more they created a vocal minority who heavily drank the coolaid loosing the ability to even consider that the god like apparatus could be wrong. There are small vocal minorities all over the spectrum that say all sorts of crap. The WHO isn’t yet only voice of “the system” though and plenty of other services and agencies recognised covid was airborne as soon as the evidence was out. As for the WHO, they’re a weak politically compromised organisation that was all over the map in their vivid response. Being a political football is by design though, as a UN agency. Even so, they are also an incredibly important resource for dozens of developing countries that heavily rely on their technical expertise and resources. INHO the answer is to strengthen them and make them more independent and capable if tending off political pressure, but unfortunately their (frankly deserved) credibility hit probably makes that impossible, so they’ll become even more bent out of shape by interference. We do need a credible, well resourced, at least somewhat independent global health organisation though.
simonh 5y ago
> the more they created a vocal minority who heavily drank the coolaid loosing the ability to even consider that the god like apparatus could be wrong. They’re are small vocal minorities all over the spectrum that say all sorts of crap. The WHO isn’t the only voice of “the system” though and plenty of other services and agencies recognised covid was airborne as soon as the evidence was out. Overall I think at least here in the UK the system worked very well, health services were severely tested but the lockdowns were effective, and now the vaccines and other proven therapies have returned life pretty much to normal. As for the WHO, they’re a weak politically compromised organisation that was all over the map in their covid response. Being a political football is by design though, as a UN agency. The governments that hold power over it want to be able to kick it around and they do. Even so, they are also an incredibly important resource for dozens of developing countries that heavily rely on their technical expertise and resources. IMHO the answer is to strengthen them and make them more independent and capable of fending off political pressure, but unfortunately their (frankly deserved) credibility hit probably makes that impossible, so they’ll become even more bent out of shape by interference. We do need a credible, well resourced, at least somewhat independent global health organisation though.
- willyt 5y ago
  I don’t think Britain was very successful in our public health mesures. We were far too slow to lock down and recommend masks and as a result we had twice as many deaths as comparable countries like Germany and France. Our health care system was very efficient at distributing the vaccine though and this was a great success.
  - simonh 5y ago
    UK deaths per million were 2,400, France was 2,000 which is comparable. Especialy in the early phases random events like super spreaders made a big difference to individual countries impact. Germany was 1,500 but that's an outlier, it helps do mass testing and targeted lockdowns early if your country is one of the global centres for the medical testing industry. You're quite right we should have locked down a few weeks earlier in the first phases. What I'm saying is the lockdowns and mask mandates worked. You're saying we needed more aggressive lockdowns and more masks, and I won't argue with you, yes. We could have done with even more of these measures, but the measures clearly did what they were supposed to do. That's just saying we needed more of the system not that the system failed in the way I think OP meant. If anything Germany's success was because they were even more tightly integrated into the system.
avazhi 5y ago
"Quite a good summary for the entire clusterfuck that was the pandemic response. I still cant wrap my head about the utter spineless idiocy. You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong, you do so by lying to protect your image despite knowing better. You being wrong isnt dependent on you acknowledging it." This statement applies to the WHO, and it applies equally to China, which will wear the shame of COVID for centuries. If China had been forthcoming from the start of the pandemic instead of obfuscating and frustrating every single attempt by the rest of the world to ascertain COVID's existence, its nature, and the risk it posed, China's role as COVID's origin would have been merely a footnote relegated to the introductory paragraph of all future histories written on the subject. Now, though, China will forever be remembered as the wannabe superpower that was so scared of the truth that it knowingly fucked over the rest of the world for more than 2 years. On top of that, the Chinese are so incompetent that the truth got out anyway. Great job, Xi.
- hnbad 5y ago
  I'm going out on a limb here and guess you're in the US because that's the only place I've seen hyperfixating on China during COVID discussions. I don't think "China will forever be remembered as the wannabe superpower that was so scared of the truth that it knowingly fucked over the rest of the world for more than 2 years" because that's not even what anyone remembers them as today, outside the US. And even in the US I don't think that's going to matter or create any semblence of a legacy in any way that matters. China was very quick to rebound from the economic downturn and as far as I can tell came out ahead of everyone else. Not to mention that every single other country fucked up their pandemic response so badly that getting angry at China requires several layers of indirection (though some US media has been better at making this detour).
  - avazhi 5y ago
    Not in the US, nor am I a particular fan of the US or US foreign policies. I also think Trump's IQ is sub 90. This was still a massive Chinese fuckup IMO, with the local CCP in Wuhan implicated in particular.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
refurb 5y ago
You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong, you do so by lying to protect your image despite knowing better. Yup, I had a chance to be involved in some high profile (for the company) PR issues and one of the worse things you can do is trying to cover something up. It's far better to just be transparent and admitting errors can actually build trust if done right. But I also understand that without solid evidence, it can be impossible to give firm recommendations, which in the end can make people question the value of what you say. Getting PR right is actually really hard.
FooBarWidget 5y ago
> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Maybe that's how you think, but lots of people don't think that way. To a large part of the masses, experts have to be right the first time around, otherwise people lose trust in them. Many people don't understand the scientific method or that science is not about certainty but about constantly learning and adjusting. Many treat science and expertise as authoritative, and when they fail, or even if they say "we don't know", many lost faith in the entire concept of science, jumping to... less science-y approaches that feel more emotionally gratifying. Is this just a failure of education? I don't know.
- verisimi 5y ago
  It shouldn't matter how you think, or how a change of opinion is viewed. The idea is that science should be continuous discovery process - scientists are meant to be acting in good faith, not hiding or 'managing' information. If we are genuinely seeking understanding (not attempting to sell people on a particular viewpoint), why shouldn't new information be widely disseminated? Whatever has been going on, it is clear that from the start this has been a massively politicised process directing the world's governments. That it is so politicised means that I personally have very little faith in the scientific proclamations that are handed down.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Shouldn’t matter? No. Does matter? Yes. And that’s why things get politicised in the first place.
- dhzhzjsbevs 5y ago
  > Many people don't understand the scientific method or that science is not about certainty but about constantly learning and adjusting. This is the Fauci argument. It doesn't work. Aside from being incredibly Condescending to assume the masses are too stupid to handle the truth... All it does is open you up to criticism from people that understand basic logic. Those criticisms then spread between these "many people". On the other hand, if you told the truth up front, you might have "many people" misunderstand something, but you have the upside of the many other people being able to argue why they're wrong over the following months. Eventually truth and facts prevail. You maintain credibility with people that do understand science, and you get eventual credibility from those who misunderstand. Sure some will never change but you were going to instantly lose credibility to them either way.
hemloc_io 5y ago
The public health institutions in the USA have really failed us. Covid was more of a public health blunder than a medical one. Not having a cohesive strategy, conflicting and often political messaging around gatherings, and worst of all lying to people repeatedly bc they couldn’t “handle” the truth is insane. On top of that there was and still are plenty of plans for locking down etc that have no actual metrics around them. They’re literally just feeling based. At least the medical companies came up with a good enough vaccine to get us out of this mess. It really feels like the public health officials and politicians to some extent view the public with contempt.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tinus_hn 5y ago
And they created another vocal minority who doesn’t believe anything coming from official sources. It’s failure all around.

xracy 5y ago

You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I agree the not changing your mind is worse, but they also describe this thing as being driven by consensus as doctors, so you're having to change a bunch of people's minds who think they're the very best at what they do. It's a serious failing of that setup. It's somewhat impressive that they ever changed their mind.

stephen_g 5y ago
I feel like bending into that with increased dishonesty only makes that worse though. There's only a 'gotcha' if you change your mind while pretending you were never wrong, if you explain what evidence changed your mind then there's not that much power in pointing out 'flip-flopping'. But at a deeper level, it shows that they should have been more careful with the messaging from the start. The actual message should have been "There's currently not enough evidence to say COVID is airborne" which is a lot easier to correct to "Actually, it appears that it is airborne" than going from saying it definitely wasn't and being completely wrong... The masks thing was also just crazy. Completely indefensible, claiming that "we had to lie because otherwise people would have panic-bought masks" just destroys trust even more into the future...
- mjevans 5y ago
  People DID panic buy... every damned thing anyway. Particularly the toilet paper. I'm just glad my buying habits are to retain a stock of that anyway since I buy it at a warehouse store.
- xracy 5y ago
  9/10 times if you flip-flop, the way it is communicated is not with that level of nuance. So you can absolutely change your mind the correct way with given data, and the way it's communicated is with a headline that says "CDC/WHO FLIP FLOPS ABOUT VIRUS". You don't get to decide how people respond to a flip-flop, so you're strongly incentivized to make them as quiet as possible because it's not valued in our society to learn from your mistakes. We just want people who were correct the first time. If you pick a stock, and it goes up you claim you know something about it. If you pick a stock and it goes down and then up, you still point to the stock that you got correct the first time. Also, if you read the article, it's not that they didn't think it was airborne. It was that they didn't believe in airborne viruses. The common wisdom was that viruses are too heavy to stay airborne long enough for them to think it possible to become sick from that.
thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
It’s certainly strange when people suddenly appear to have changed their mind, without explaining or acknowledging it. A little humility and explanation would help. If a pundit is making a scene of it, go on his show.
KrishnaShripad 5y ago
> You also lose people when you change your mind. There's an entire group of news anchors who dedicate themselves to pointing out where people have flip-flopped. It's pretty common. I think you are talking about Fauci's flip-flop here. The point is not about his flip-flop on mask mandate. The point was about his confidence. You do not go and say confidently, on National TV, that masks don't stop the virus and that people should stop buying masks from stores as it is needed for emergency workers. Then turn around half a year later, after the pandemic is in full swing and say that masks are important as it stops the virus. Both times he said it he said that it is based on credible scientific evidence. This is what ticks people off. If you do not know something and have no facts to back up your claim, don't say it. If you want to still say it (as you don't want people to hoard masks), appeal to the people to not hoard masks out of fear as those masks are needed for the frontline workers. Better still, get the US Government to buy those masks or ban stores from selling masks to general public until you have equipped frontline workers. Then ease the ban. Do not lie by saying that masks don't prevent virus as it sends a negative message and reassurance that everything is fine. Then turn around half a year later and say it is dangerous! This sort of flip-flop is not acceptable to anyone. Especially when it comes to disaster response. You are an expert for a reason. People trust your words. You are in a position of power when it comes to your own field. Don't degrade/misuse that position. The reason WHO lost its credibility is because of it shutting down alternative takes, continuous flip-flops and ever changing directives/mandates. It would have been better if WHO started by saying "We don't know. It is a novel virus. We are still learning as we go along. We will issue directives as and when we get more information. Please note that these directives are temporary and only based on evidence we have right in front of us. If things change, we will keep you informed. We still aren't sure what to make of it". This is all WHO needed to do. This would have instilled a bit of fear yes (which in hindsight was actually needed to make lockdowns effective and mask mandates effective). You took away the "fear" factor at the very beginning of the virus outbreak and then when people got the message, you try to tell them to now start fearing the virus. Why would people buy your argument? And how many of them will take you seriously after such a drastic flip-flop? Rather than confidently put out statements that the virus isn't airborne or doesn't spread through contact WHO should have been honest from the start. That it doesn't know anything and is learning as we go along. That the virus maybe dangerous and that we have to be cautious. Another big one is that WHO announced it is not human-to-human transmissible: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152 "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China." There was no disclaimer to say that this investigation is ongoing. That this preliminary data collected will have a final investigation as well. That it can change as more data becomes available. Communication is key in disaster response. You do not say anything with 100% certainty if you do not know it to be true.
nstart 5y ago
I don't know if this has been tested, but I'd venture a guess that this has something to do with how one flip flops. Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". Changing this later to "This fact Y (that people were asking about, shh) is true. We won't mention that it contradicts X that much. We won't say we were wrong. We will say that as institution C Org, we have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise is wrong" VS Exhibit B: "We as A Org, have reason to believe that X is the most true thing we know given current knowledge. We acknowledge fact Y exists and are actively investigating it and its implications. For people searching for guidance, A Org recommends actions S,T, and U. We will continue to research and revise information where necessary" --- I feel like Exhibit A, which is something I see a lot from government entities (confirmation bias makes me want to add "in the US") makes a changing of mind a thing of pride since you've staked a bet on it. A bet which usually is condescending and says "I'm right, you're wrong" Exhibit B leaves the hatches open while still getting a firm message down based on today's knowledge. Sadly there's no A/B testing we can turn to to know which approach would be better. But just out of sensibility, I wish more entities engaged in the latter approach
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". I've noticed a pattern where people will take this as their default assumption, and even selectively read evidence to the contrary in order to maintain that assumption. For example, a while ago on HN[1], someone posted this link[2] about a CDC announcement titled "CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'". The claim was that the CDC director, Walensky, insisted that vaccinated people do not carry COVID and insisted that they were 90% protected against infection, and the CDC wouldn't walk back on those claims. However, when reading the article, it shows that the assumption that the CDC was using Exhibit A's method in their announcement was wrong, and the CDC actually used the more reasonable method in your Exhibit B: > Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 front-line workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March. > But more data is still necessary to say so definitively, which is why researchers are recruiting thousands of college students across the country to find out more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread of this virus among vaccinated people. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated...
nabla9 5y ago
The article was a good and balanced piece looking from the all aspects. Only thing you see is people picking only quotes that help to propagate the nihilist condemnation of WHO as corrupt and incompetent. The evidence for airborne transmission was really low quality at first. It's pretty normal, but very unfortunate, that people get primed to their early experience of new theory and can't see above it.

drewcoo 5y ago

Trust and truth are two very different things. It's possible to lose trust by telling the truth. So is it worth it to be less truthful? Is there good you can accomplish with that trust? I see what they're playing and the bind they're in. It's a very social kind of game. I'm just too simple to be there or have dealt with it.

janto 5y ago
I no longer trust them to tell the truth. Trust is what you earn when you prioritize truthfulness above all else. They decided to spend public trust to what end?

senectus1 5y ago

This is because science is being corroded by politics. Politics is being paralyzed by binarism. Everything is Right OR Wrong, left OR right, on OR off. there is no grey areas anymore.. there is no acceptable position that is in between or overlaps.

JetAlone 5y ago
Hmmm... There are some grey areas. For example, in most spaces it's socially acceptable to wear one mask or two.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Disagree, plenty of organizations and people lost credibility in the eyes of some for doing just this as new research emerged over the course of the pandemic.

kelnos 5y ago
I agree with that. But I think there's a small gap in credibility loss between "being right in the first place" and "being wrong, but admitting it promptly". And a much larger gap between "being wrong, but admitting it promptly", and "being wrong, and refusing to admit it until everyone has known you were wrong for a long time".
- j4yav 5y ago
  There's also the interesting "being right, but essentially having guessed and tied various other crackpot theories to the reasoning" that muddies the water further. For example, that COVID was always airborne, but it is actually the vaccine that causes it because the microchips they put in it have little propellers on them and they use them to fly around the room.
  - awb 5y ago
    Or, just as bad, making an unsubstantiated claim that turns out to be true down the road. Like saying: “X could be bad for you”, but offering no evidence, theories or studies. Then it turns out X does have some downsides. I don’t think you get any credit for having randomly guessed a correct answer.
makeitdouble 5y ago
Parent's point is that they'd lose these people's credibility either way by the mere fact of being wrong. To me the paths look like: - acknowledge your mistakes: some people will accept based on your attitude, others will resent you being wrong. - don't acknowledge: people who would have otherwise accepted mistakes now resent your stubbornness. Others will still resent you for being wrong.

3np 5y ago

Three, I think; being overconfident and not admitting uncertainty from the beginning (or lying from the start, depending on your interpretation)

dalbasal 5y ago

>> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong, you do so by lying to protect your image despite knowing better. You being wrong isnt dependent on you acknowledging it. Unfortunately, in the public/political realm, I think this isn't true. Flip flopping suggests weak morals. When scientific "facts" change, a lot of people conclude that the scientists know nothing.

prox 5y ago
“A lot of people” are also idiots. But that’s not new. Flip flopping for all the right reasons makes all the difference as G-man would say.

Krasnol 5y ago

Just today and yesterday our widely respected health minister here in Germany lost a lot credibility by changing his opinion. He said there would be no requirement for quarantine soon and changed it to "quarantine stays" a day later. All he did by that was alienating his biggest support group: vaccinated people. While the covidiots are cheering because "they knew it all along". We came out of this with a better solution but still...unnecessary loss of credibility. Next time people will think: I can ignore that, "they" will probably turn it around tomorrow. The art is to only talk if you're sure what you say.

watwut 5y ago

> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Unfortunately, you do. It is something that could change and should change. But as of now, changing mind is treated as "gotcha".

simonh 5y ago

> the more they created a vocal minority who heavily drank the coolaid loosing the ability to even consider that the god like apparatus could be wrong. There are small vocal minorities all over the spectrum that say all sorts of crap. The WHO isn’t yet only voice of “the system” though and plenty of other services and agencies recognised covid was airborne as soon as the evidence was out. As for the WHO, they’re a weak politically compromised organisation that was all over the map in their vivid response. Being a political football is by design though, as a UN agency. Even so, they are also an incredibly important resource for dozens of developing countries that heavily rely on their technical expertise and resources. INHO the answer is to strengthen them and make them more independent and capable if tending off political pressure, but unfortunately their (frankly deserved) credibility hit probably makes that impossible, so they’ll become even more bent out of shape by interference. We do need a credible, well resourced, at least somewhat independent global health organisation though.

simonh 5y ago

> the more they created a vocal minority who heavily drank the coolaid loosing the ability to even consider that the god like apparatus could be wrong. They’re are small vocal minorities all over the spectrum that say all sorts of crap. The WHO isn’t the only voice of “the system” though and plenty of other services and agencies recognised covid was airborne as soon as the evidence was out. Overall I think at least here in the UK the system worked very well, health services were severely tested but the lockdowns were effective, and now the vaccines and other proven therapies have returned life pretty much to normal. As for the WHO, they’re a weak politically compromised organisation that was all over the map in their covid response. Being a political football is by design though, as a UN agency. The governments that hold power over it want to be able to kick it around and they do. Even so, they are also an incredibly important resource for dozens of developing countries that heavily rely on their technical expertise and resources. IMHO the answer is to strengthen them and make them more independent and capable of fending off political pressure, but unfortunately their (frankly deserved) credibility hit probably makes that impossible, so they’ll become even more bent out of shape by interference. We do need a credible, well resourced, at least somewhat independent global health organisation though.

willyt 5y ago
I don’t think Britain was very successful in our public health mesures. We were far too slow to lock down and recommend masks and as a result we had twice as many deaths as comparable countries like Germany and France. Our health care system was very efficient at distributing the vaccine though and this was a great success.
- simonh 5y ago
  UK deaths per million were 2,400, France was 2,000 which is comparable. Especialy in the early phases random events like super spreaders made a big difference to individual countries impact. Germany was 1,500 but that's an outlier, it helps do mass testing and targeted lockdowns early if your country is one of the global centres for the medical testing industry. You're quite right we should have locked down a few weeks earlier in the first phases. What I'm saying is the lockdowns and mask mandates worked. You're saying we needed more aggressive lockdowns and more masks, and I won't argue with you, yes. We could have done with even more of these measures, but the measures clearly did what they were supposed to do. That's just saying we needed more of the system not that the system failed in the way I think OP meant. If anything Germany's success was because they were even more tightly integrated into the system.

avazhi 5y ago

"Quite a good summary for the entire clusterfuck that was the pandemic response. I still cant wrap my head about the utter spineless idiocy. You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong, you do so by lying to protect your image despite knowing better. You being wrong isnt dependent on you acknowledging it." This statement applies to the WHO, and it applies equally to China, which will wear the shame of COVID for centuries. If China had been forthcoming from the start of the pandemic instead of obfuscating and frustrating every single attempt by the rest of the world to ascertain COVID's existence, its nature, and the risk it posed, China's role as COVID's origin would have been merely a footnote relegated to the introductory paragraph of all future histories written on the subject. Now, though, China will forever be remembered as the wannabe superpower that was so scared of the truth that it knowingly fucked over the rest of the world for more than 2 years. On top of that, the Chinese are so incompetent that the truth got out anyway. Great job, Xi.

hnbad 5y ago
I'm going out on a limb here and guess you're in the US because that's the only place I've seen hyperfixating on China during COVID discussions. I don't think "China will forever be remembered as the wannabe superpower that was so scared of the truth that it knowingly fucked over the rest of the world for more than 2 years" because that's not even what anyone remembers them as today, outside the US. And even in the US I don't think that's going to matter or create any semblence of a legacy in any way that matters. China was very quick to rebound from the economic downturn and as far as I can tell came out ahead of everyone else. Not to mention that every single other country fucked up their pandemic response so badly that getting angry at China requires several layers of indirection (though some US media has been better at making this detour).
- avazhi 5y ago
  Not in the US, nor am I a particular fan of the US or US foreign policies. I also think Trump's IQ is sub 90. This was still a massive Chinese fuckup IMO, with the local CCP in Wuhan implicated in particular.
FooBarWidget 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong, you do so by lying to protect your image despite knowing better. Yup, I had a chance to be involved in some high profile (for the company) PR issues and one of the worse things you can do is trying to cover something up. It's far better to just be transparent and admitting errors can actually build trust if done right. But I also understand that without solid evidence, it can be impossible to give firm recommendations, which in the end can make people question the value of what you say. Getting PR right is actually really hard.

FooBarWidget 5y ago

> You dont loose credibility by acknowledging you were wrong Maybe that's how you think, but lots of people don't think that way. To a large part of the masses, experts have to be right the first time around, otherwise people lose trust in them. Many people don't understand the scientific method or that science is not about certainty but about constantly learning and adjusting. Many treat science and expertise as authoritative, and when they fail, or even if they say "we don't know", many lost faith in the entire concept of science, jumping to... less science-y approaches that feel more emotionally gratifying. Is this just a failure of education? I don't know.

verisimi 5y ago
It shouldn't matter how you think, or how a change of opinion is viewed. The idea is that science should be continuous discovery process - scientists are meant to be acting in good faith, not hiding or 'managing' information. If we are genuinely seeking understanding (not attempting to sell people on a particular viewpoint), why shouldn't new information be widely disseminated? Whatever has been going on, it is clear that from the start this has been a massively politicised process directing the world's governments. That it is so politicised means that I personally have very little faith in the scientific proclamations that are handed down.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Shouldn’t matter? No. Does matter? Yes. And that’s why things get politicised in the first place.
dhzhzjsbevs 5y ago
> Many people don't understand the scientific method or that science is not about certainty but about constantly learning and adjusting. This is the Fauci argument. It doesn't work. Aside from being incredibly Condescending to assume the masses are too stupid to handle the truth... All it does is open you up to criticism from people that understand basic logic. Those criticisms then spread between these "many people". On the other hand, if you told the truth up front, you might have "many people" misunderstand something, but you have the upside of the many other people being able to argue why they're wrong over the following months. Eventually truth and facts prevail. You maintain credibility with people that do understand science, and you get eventual credibility from those who misunderstand. Sure some will never change but you were going to instantly lose credibility to them either way.

hemloc_io 5y ago

The public health institutions in the USA have really failed us. Covid was more of a public health blunder than a medical one. Not having a cohesive strategy, conflicting and often political messaging around gatherings, and worst of all lying to people repeatedly bc they couldn’t “handle” the truth is insane. On top of that there was and still are plenty of plans for locking down etc that have no actual metrics around them. They’re literally just feeling based. At least the medical companies came up with a good enough vaccine to get us out of this mess. It really feels like the public health officials and politicians to some extent view the public with contempt.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tinus_hn 5y ago

And they created another vocal minority who doesn’t believe anything coming from official sources. It’s failure all around.