5 ms·

Not really, being anti science like most of the "critics" of the vaccines were is what should get you booted. The CDC did fine with what they had to work with t

Not really, being anti science like most of the "critics" of the vaccines were is what should get you booted. The CDC did fine with what they had to work with to be honest. The vast majority of the people I saw being critical of the vaccines had no basis other than "I don't trust this!" and they had zero proof. 99% were hacks on twitter or far right wing "news" outlets like Fox news which have lost all credibility.

RichardCNormos 4y ago
Calling people "anti-science" is something of a canard, a trick of speech designed to belittle and demean anyone who questions the validity of current research. I might add that "the science" was consistently wrong about many things during the pandemic. Here is a collection of scientific gymnastics: https://yesithappened.substack.com/p/a-collection-of-insane-covid-narrative https://yesithappened.substack.com/p/a-collection-of-insane-...
- staticman2 4y ago
  To quote a certain blogger I follow: "The ongoing Pandemic has solidified my belief that that most people would be better off in this world if they listened less to laypeople who think they know a lot about medicine and instead listened more to people who have graduated medical school and have a whole bunch of framed diplomas and certificates on the walls of their medical office. It's also a good indicator of competence if they have a medical office." And no I don't think searching the world for the one doctor out of one thousand willing to tell you what you want to hear is really in the spirit of that quote.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    A question for you. Imagine you're a doctor and after extensive research and your own medical experience and praxis, you conclude that, for instance, vaccination is probably a less than optimal choice for individuals under the age of 40. How comfortable would you feel publicly expressing this? One of the biggest problems when a society starts to become intolerant towards dissenting views is that consensus itself starts to become impossible, or at least meaningless. Most people don't care that much about most issues. Make it sting enough to dissent, and you'll eliminate dissent from all but those willing to choose this hill to die on. But in such a case the lack of dissent becomes meaningless.
    - staticman2 4y ago
      I assume by "publically expressing" you mean not saying things to friends over a beer but posting things online or that will go online in some fashion. If I was a doctor it's unlikely I would be publically expressing anything. As far as I know I've never been treated by a doctor who goes around publically expressing things on any topic. When I see a specialist it's usually because I got a referral from a family doctor not because "This doctor has an exciting Twitter feed". I would guess my doctors have no public twitter feeds at all, not that I've ever checked. But your question is too vague. In this scenario am I a random "doctor" or am I a nationally regarded expert in the relevant field? And did I run my views past respected colleagues and did they recieve it well or tell me I'm being an idiot? I think the job of practicing medicine is generally about going to conferences and basing your practice on what the doctors regarded as being in the top of their field suggest. Just like the job of becoming a doctor is about answering the questions on medical school exams in line with what the teacher told you is true, not "sharing your original views" on how the teacher is wrong. I was born before social networks existed and reject the implicit framing society works better when everybody debates everything on social media all day. Some things might work well being debated on social media, but not everything.
      - artificialLimbs 4y ago
        Doctors shouldn’t be sharing their opinions online is your hot take?
        staticman2 4y ago
        Doctors are supposed to be providing the public with medical advise in line with the standards of their profession, not sharing "opinions" on medical matters whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. If you can't convince your colleagues that your "opinions" have value and you have such a high opinion of your judgement relative to the rest of your profession that you insist on broadcasting these "opinions" to the world anyway, chances are you have a high level of confidence and a low level of competence and you aren't a very good doctor. Especially if these "opinions" are outside your specialty. I know the notion that a doctor should show intellectual humility may offend autodidactics who doesn't even think a layperson should show intellectual humility, but so it goes.
  - dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
    >"The ongoing Pandemic has solidified my belief that that most people would be better off in this world if they listened less to laypeople who think they know a lot about medicine and instead listened more to people who have graduated medical school and have a whole bunch of framed diplomas and certificates on the walls of their medical office. It's also a good indicator of competence if they have a medical office." >And no I don't think searching the world for the one doctor out of one thousand willing to tell you what you want to hear is really in the spirit of that quote. Well there are laymen, and there are knowledgeable skeptics. Conflated the 2 and one get to gleefully brush aside questions by dismissing knowledgeable skeptics as laymen.
mercy_dude 4y ago
> The CDC did fine with what they had to work with to be honest. If that’s the standard we have to live by after the most devastating pandemic in a century for the most developed country in the world, then there is not going to be any lessons or improvement when the next one hits. The CDC didn’t (still doesn’t) have a full picture of mode of transmission of the virus (aerosol vs others). They kept saying it’s not airborne when all being said it looks like it is. Their focus on hand washing in retrospection seems like not a productive strategy whatsoever. The whole mask fiasco (first saying it isn’t recommended and then a straight up 180) caused the public in rooted mistrust and then their PR umbrella did a poor job addressing and admitting any failure. Their PR branch effectively did nothing to earn trust of a large swaths of public who didn’t buy into vaccination other than often resorting to name calling and gaslighting the debate further which is absolutely the opposite of what you would want to do in that situation if you really want people to get vaccinated. Many occasions they did slow walk backs and often no oversights on grants and revolving doors setup within these agencies with FDA and other pharma industries. Calling everyone criticizing you “anti-science” is a great way of not learning any lessons for next epidemic. There is a lot we can do better.

RichardCNormos 4y ago

Calling people "anti-science" is something of a canard, a trick of speech designed to belittle and demean anyone who questions the validity of current research. I might add that "the science" was consistently wrong about many things during the pandemic. Here is a collection of scientific gymnastics: https://yesithappened.substack.com/p/a-collection-of-insane-covid-narrative https://yesithappened.substack.com/p/a-collection-of-insane-...

staticman2 4y ago
To quote a certain blogger I follow: "The ongoing Pandemic has solidified my belief that that most people would be better off in this world if they listened less to laypeople who think they know a lot about medicine and instead listened more to people who have graduated medical school and have a whole bunch of framed diplomas and certificates on the walls of their medical office. It's also a good indicator of competence if they have a medical office." And no I don't think searching the world for the one doctor out of one thousand willing to tell you what you want to hear is really in the spirit of that quote.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  A question for you. Imagine you're a doctor and after extensive research and your own medical experience and praxis, you conclude that, for instance, vaccination is probably a less than optimal choice for individuals under the age of 40. How comfortable would you feel publicly expressing this? One of the biggest problems when a society starts to become intolerant towards dissenting views is that consensus itself starts to become impossible, or at least meaningless. Most people don't care that much about most issues. Make it sting enough to dissent, and you'll eliminate dissent from all but those willing to choose this hill to die on. But in such a case the lack of dissent becomes meaningless.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    I assume by "publically expressing" you mean not saying things to friends over a beer but posting things online or that will go online in some fashion. If I was a doctor it's unlikely I would be publically expressing anything. As far as I know I've never been treated by a doctor who goes around publically expressing things on any topic. When I see a specialist it's usually because I got a referral from a family doctor not because "This doctor has an exciting Twitter feed". I would guess my doctors have no public twitter feeds at all, not that I've ever checked. But your question is too vague. In this scenario am I a random "doctor" or am I a nationally regarded expert in the relevant field? And did I run my views past respected colleagues and did they recieve it well or tell me I'm being an idiot? I think the job of practicing medicine is generally about going to conferences and basing your practice on what the doctors regarded as being in the top of their field suggest. Just like the job of becoming a doctor is about answering the questions on medical school exams in line with what the teacher told you is true, not "sharing your original views" on how the teacher is wrong. I was born before social networks existed and reject the implicit framing society works better when everybody debates everything on social media all day. Some things might work well being debated on social media, but not everything.
    - artificialLimbs 4y ago
      Doctors shouldn’t be sharing their opinions online is your hot take?
      - staticman2 4y ago
        Doctors are supposed to be providing the public with medical advise in line with the standards of their profession, not sharing "opinions" on medical matters whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. If you can't convince your colleagues that your "opinions" have value and you have such a high opinion of your judgement relative to the rest of your profession that you insist on broadcasting these "opinions" to the world anyway, chances are you have a high level of confidence and a low level of competence and you aren't a very good doctor. Especially if these "opinions" are outside your specialty. I know the notion that a doctor should show intellectual humility may offend autodidactics who doesn't even think a layperson should show intellectual humility, but so it goes.
- dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
  >"The ongoing Pandemic has solidified my belief that that most people would be better off in this world if they listened less to laypeople who think they know a lot about medicine and instead listened more to people who have graduated medical school and have a whole bunch of framed diplomas and certificates on the walls of their medical office. It's also a good indicator of competence if they have a medical office." >And no I don't think searching the world for the one doctor out of one thousand willing to tell you what you want to hear is really in the spirit of that quote. Well there are laymen, and there are knowledgeable skeptics. Conflated the 2 and one get to gleefully brush aside questions by dismissing knowledgeable skeptics as laymen.

mercy_dude 4y ago

> The CDC did fine with what they had to work with to be honest. If that’s the standard we have to live by after the most devastating pandemic in a century for the most developed country in the world, then there is not going to be any lessons or improvement when the next one hits. The CDC didn’t (still doesn’t) have a full picture of mode of transmission of the virus (aerosol vs others). They kept saying it’s not airborne when all being said it looks like it is. Their focus on hand washing in retrospection seems like not a productive strategy whatsoever. The whole mask fiasco (first saying it isn’t recommended and then a straight up 180) caused the public in rooted mistrust and then their PR umbrella did a poor job addressing and admitting any failure. Their PR branch effectively did nothing to earn trust of a large swaths of public who didn’t buy into vaccination other than often resorting to name calling and gaslighting the debate further which is absolutely the opposite of what you would want to do in that situation if you really want people to get vaccinated. Many occasions they did slow walk backs and often no oversights on grants and revolving doors setup within these agencies with FDA and other pharma industries. Calling everyone criticizing you “anti-science” is a great way of not learning any lessons for next epidemic. There is a lot we can do better.