8 ms·

> It has been unfortunately necessary to downplay cases of debilitation I don't think it was necessary at all, and instead is very counterproductive. Many peop

by ta8645 4y ago

> It has been unfortunately necessary to downplay cases of debilitation I don't think it was necessary at all, and instead is very counterproductive. Many people know they're not being dealt with honestly by the government and media, resulting in more distrust and resistance to vaccination, than there otherwise would be.

ncmncm 4y ago
The number of deaths would objectively be larger if people had access to accurate numbers, because even more would avoid vaccination and then die of the infection vaccinated against. It is a tragic calculus. "Trolley Problems" are very far from theoretical in public health management. We are forced by distrust to sub-optimal choices that themselves promote distrust. Managing risk of a better population would be easier, but you battle pandemic in the population you have, not the population you want.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  You state confidently that deaths would be higher, but you gave no evidence for that. I believe you are wrong. The lies confirm to all that we should not trust you. Assuming you have any ability to recommend things that will actually save lives, in the long term proving yourself a liar will only lead to fewer people believing you and taking your advice. So tell the truth, build trust, and let people decide for themselves. That will save lives in the long run.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Downplaying isn't lying, and categorizing people into those that tell the truth and those that don't tell the truth is a stupid way of assessing anything important.
    - jtbayly 4y ago
      Lying about the risks is lying, regardless of what ends you think will justify the means. But even if you disagree, let’s talk about your claim that categorizing into two groups is stupid. Think from the citizen’s perspective of the CDC. The question is, “Do I trust them enough to take health advice from them?” If they have lied to you too many times about things that are important enough, the answer is no way. I never implied all that this lying group said was lies. Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        If you decide to do your own research, you need to do the damn research. Just not listening is a terrible idea. And all sources are flawed!
        jtbayly 4y ago
        You’re going to listen to somebody! When the public institutions become untrustworthy, and this lose their authority, who knows what authority figure you will turn to? It could be anybody. It could be Q.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > You’re going to listen to somebody! You can look into major issues without needing authority figures. > When the public institutions become untrustworthy, and this lose their authority Trust is not binary. No source is unbiased.
        jtbayly 4y ago
        > You can look into major issues without needing authority figures. No you can’t. Not unless you are doing the study yourself. And even then, almost all studies rely on other authorities. Things like death certificates and cause of death, hospital reports, etc. all depend on authorities and you have to decide whether you trust them for this thing. I never said it was binary. I said trust can and is lost through lies. If you can’t acknowledge that, I’m not sure what else to say.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > I never said it was binary. I said trust can and is lost through lies. If you can’t acknowledge that, I’m not sure what else to say. "Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops." I would call this binary. I don't really care what we call it, though. Especially if downplaying counts as lying, then this policy is completely infeasible. It means nobody will ever be listened to. Trust is wiped out in all circumstances. It's a really stupid way of handling a biased source. And all sources are biased, so it's a really stupid way of handling sources. If you want to say that one lie adds skepticism to a thousand truths, that would be a massive improvement, because A) it works well to be somewhat skeptical of all sources, and B) you can still learn from many sources you're skeptical of.
    - zeven7 4y ago
      This is exactly why a large portion of the population is not wrong to doubt the official narrative. Science shouldn't even be engaged in trying to save as many lives as possible. Science should only be concerned with discovering and disseminating the truth as it is.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Public health should not be confused with science. They are separate activities.
        zeven7 4y ago
        Maybe tell some of our public health officials that
        ncmncm 4y ago
        They are busy actually doing public health. I do not envy them it. They spend their lives trying to save others', and get shat on for it.
        zeven7 4y ago
        Ok, so they're too busy to understand this basic difference between public health (their own field) and science, something that you're telling some random person on the internet about. Nice
        ncmncm 4y ago
        They understand the difference. It is other people who, evidently, do not, and need it explained.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Excuse me, where did I lie? I have no role in collecting or reporting on adverse reactions. I don't even know for sure that adverse reaction numbers are as large as I suspect. I do empathize with the people trying to minimize deaths from a raging pandemic in an atmosphere of politically-motivated disinformation that is actively contemptuous toward public safety. People with your attitude make their work that much harder, and cost more unnecessary deaths.
    - jtbayly 4y ago
      Sorry. You spoke in the first person plural “we” so I just addressed my comment back to a generic “you.” I never meant to say anyone in particular (let alone you) was a liar. However, you were advocating for not giving people accurate numbers. Whoever is in charge of that decision should not lie. They should give accurate numbers.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        What they should do if the goal is to minimize public mortality is not obvious. What they should do as a matter of abstract merit, or of public perception of benignity, are two wholly different, generally easier and less vexing questions.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    What you mean is, tell the truth and be blasted for lying anyway. I have plenty of complaints about how public health measures are prioritized in the US. I am not worried about official dishonesty. Public officials are just as good at fooling themselves as everybody else, so they can be wrong without lying, and will be at times. Expecting somebody, anybody to be right all the time is a recipe for disappointment.
- pawsforthought 4y ago
  Perhaps public health officials need to pay more attention to the iterated trolley problem. Difficult, for sure, when dealing with the pandemic in front of you, and not the next one that comes, but our encroachment on animal viral reservoirs and insistence on conducting hazardous gain-of-function research all but guarantees the next one will come sooner or later.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Gain-of-function research, conducted carefully enough, might expose risks ahead of time that could be vaccinated against. You would generally prefer that it be in pathogens not already adapted to humans, or in places those are handled. We are guaranteed pandemics regardless, just by how much international travel we do. What matters is the response. We are lucky monkeypox (actually a rodent illness) is rarely fatal.

by ta8645 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

The number of deaths would objectively be larger if people had access to accurate numbers, because even more would avoid vaccination and then die of the infection vaccinated against. It is a tragic calculus. "Trolley Problems" are very far from theoretical in public health management. We are forced by distrust to sub-optimal choices that themselves promote distrust. Managing risk of a better population would be easier, but you battle pandemic in the population you have, not the population you want.

jtbayly 4y ago
You state confidently that deaths would be higher, but you gave no evidence for that. I believe you are wrong. The lies confirm to all that we should not trust you. Assuming you have any ability to recommend things that will actually save lives, in the long term proving yourself a liar will only lead to fewer people believing you and taking your advice. So tell the truth, build trust, and let people decide for themselves. That will save lives in the long run.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Downplaying isn't lying, and categorizing people into those that tell the truth and those that don't tell the truth is a stupid way of assessing anything important.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    Lying about the risks is lying, regardless of what ends you think will justify the means. But even if you disagree, let’s talk about your claim that categorizing into two groups is stupid. Think from the citizen’s perspective of the CDC. The question is, “Do I trust them enough to take health advice from them?” If they have lied to you too many times about things that are important enough, the answer is no way. I never implied all that this lying group said was lies. Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      If you decide to do your own research, you need to do the damn research. Just not listening is a terrible idea. And all sources are flawed!
      - jtbayly 4y ago
        You’re going to listen to somebody! When the public institutions become untrustworthy, and this lose their authority, who knows what authority figure you will turn to? It could be anybody. It could be Q.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > You’re going to listen to somebody! You can look into major issues without needing authority figures. > When the public institutions become untrustworthy, and this lose their authority Trust is not binary. No source is unbiased.
        jtbayly 4y ago
        > You can look into major issues without needing authority figures. No you can’t. Not unless you are doing the study yourself. And even then, almost all studies rely on other authorities. Things like death certificates and cause of death, hospital reports, etc. all depend on authorities and you have to decide whether you trust them for this thing. I never said it was binary. I said trust can and is lost through lies. If you can’t acknowledge that, I’m not sure what else to say.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > I never said it was binary. I said trust can and is lost through lies. If you can’t acknowledge that, I’m not sure what else to say. "Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops." I would call this binary. I don't really care what we call it, though. Especially if downplaying counts as lying, then this policy is completely infeasible. It means nobody will ever be listened to. Trust is wiped out in all circumstances. It's a really stupid way of handling a biased source. And all sources are biased, so it's a really stupid way of handling sources. If you want to say that one lie adds skepticism to a thousand truths, that would be a massive improvement, because A) it works well to be somewhat skeptical of all sources, and B) you can still learn from many sources you're skeptical of.
  - zeven7 4y ago
    This is exactly why a large portion of the population is not wrong to doubt the official narrative. Science shouldn't even be engaged in trying to save as many lives as possible. Science should only be concerned with discovering and disseminating the truth as it is.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Public health should not be confused with science. They are separate activities.
      - zeven7 4y ago
        Maybe tell some of our public health officials that
        ncmncm 4y ago
        They are busy actually doing public health. I do not envy them it. They spend their lives trying to save others', and get shat on for it.
        zeven7 4y ago
        Ok, so they're too busy to understand this basic difference between public health (their own field) and science, something that you're telling some random person on the internet about. Nice
        ncmncm 4y ago
        They understand the difference. It is other people who, evidently, do not, and need it explained.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Excuse me, where did I lie? I have no role in collecting or reporting on adverse reactions. I don't even know for sure that adverse reaction numbers are as large as I suspect. I do empathize with the people trying to minimize deaths from a raging pandemic in an atmosphere of politically-motivated disinformation that is actively contemptuous toward public safety. People with your attitude make their work that much harder, and cost more unnecessary deaths.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    Sorry. You spoke in the first person plural “we” so I just addressed my comment back to a generic “you.” I never meant to say anyone in particular (let alone you) was a liar. However, you were advocating for not giving people accurate numbers. Whoever is in charge of that decision should not lie. They should give accurate numbers.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      What they should do if the goal is to minimize public mortality is not obvious. What they should do as a matter of abstract merit, or of public perception of benignity, are two wholly different, generally easier and less vexing questions.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  What you mean is, tell the truth and be blasted for lying anyway. I have plenty of complaints about how public health measures are prioritized in the US. I am not worried about official dishonesty. Public officials are just as good at fooling themselves as everybody else, so they can be wrong without lying, and will be at times. Expecting somebody, anybody to be right all the time is a recipe for disappointment.
pawsforthought 4y ago
Perhaps public health officials need to pay more attention to the iterated trolley problem. Difficult, for sure, when dealing with the pandemic in front of you, and not the next one that comes, but our encroachment on animal viral reservoirs and insistence on conducting hazardous gain-of-function research all but guarantees the next one will come sooner or later.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Gain-of-function research, conducted carefully enough, might expose risks ahead of time that could be vaccinated against. You would generally prefer that it be in pathogens not already adapted to humans, or in places those are handled. We are guaranteed pandemics regardless, just by how much international travel we do. What matters is the response. We are lucky monkeypox (actually a rodent illness) is rarely fatal.