7 ms·

It’s probably better to give up on covid “misinformation”. All sorts of official groups like the WHO and CDC themselves have been spreading it so it’s almost im

by rdtwo 4y ago

It’s probably better to give up on covid “misinformation”. All sorts of official groups like the WHO and CDC themselves have been spreading it so it’s almost impossible to come to a consensus on what is and isn’t true. Some example statements that are controversial would include: - Covid is not airborne - cloth masks are ineffective - covid originated in a lab in wuhan - omicron is mild How do you deal with statements like that without pissing off a government group? It’s better to ignore it and some associated conspiracy stuff.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Covid is not airborne Which public health authority objects to this statement?
- leereeves 4y ago
  The WHO has a mixed record here. At first they said: > FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 Now they say it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    Wuhan Covid was technically airborne but did not have meaningful airborne spread because it needed a fairly high dose to infect. Once again, it's not that the scientists got it wrong, it's that the disease changed!
    - leereeves 4y ago
      So you're claiming that airborne transmission of early variants was possible but rare? Even if true, that's not what the WHO said.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  The CDC disagreed up until May of last year. The WHO disagreed until December 2021. There is a significant overlap between all these parties of when airborne transmission was misinformation.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    I think you have their position backwards. They originally agreed and said "Covid is not airborne", now they disagree. See the links in my other comment.
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      Correct, I accidentally reversed it. The point of my comment was that there was a period where the WHO said one thing and the CDC said another and they were mutually exclusive. These were the two most prominent health authorities, and there were many more that changed their stances on different days. What is the single source of truth here? People were banned and deplatformed from social media for "spreading misinformation about COVID".
    - Auracle 4y ago
      Quite early on there were indications it was airborne. I distinctly remember a group of researchers making a stink that the CDC wasn’t changing their position in it. Honestly, I’m a bit amazed that isn’t something we can easily test. I’m no biologist but couldn’t we just take people sick with COVID in a room and have them breathe/talk/whatever with the equivalent of Petri dishes at differing distances?
  - ScoobleDoodle 4y ago
    I think you got tripped up by the double negative. To clarify your response you might repeat your assumptions in whole and don’t rely on the context of what you’re replying to. Restate it all in your own message and words. Thank you for sharing.
selfhoster11 4y ago
Science had a better idea of what the virus does after a while, and so the guidance was changed. That doesn't make the initial guidance a lie. I won't defend the WHO (because they clearly did spread some misinformation at times), but the scientific community at large only changed its messaging because their information got better, not because they got "found out" as liars.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I strongly disagree. Most of these guidance were not set on scientific grounds to begin with, but based on political grounds. The science was always in the other direction for an unbiased reviewer. It is good that science ultimately won out, but I think it will be a long time before institutional credibility is restored.
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    Guidance is normative, not descriptive. Science itself cannot tell anyone what to do. No amount of "science" can tell you how to prioritize your messaging, mask production/distribution, and hospital usage. Why is it inherently bad that the early pandemic guidance had a political valence? Obviously, no one likes to be misled, but the CDC and WHO were making decisions that would affect billions of people in the absence of any US leadership.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree that there is science and public policy. The two are different. Many choices are political and should be. For example, The tradeoff of how many deaths is it worth to keep open schools has no scientific answer. The problem is when lies are used to misrepresent the science to achieve a desirable policy outcome. The ultimate reason not to lie is that it undermines social trust and democracy.
  - quest88 4y ago
    What was political? Convince me that people weren't doing the best they could with the information they had.
okprod 4y ago
One of the issues with this is not everyone is able to ignore conspiracy stuff, they take misinformation for information, and you get something like "masks don't work". Sort of like saying Fox News is harmless because we recognize it's news entertainment rather than news; there are many who believe it (or other sources) as news.
alexk307 4y ago
I think you need to understand that emerging novel viruses take time to understand. We still understand relatively little about covid, and to be upset with Twitter for doing it’s best at a time where emerging information is being blasted around the globe, is misplaced at best. Recommendations evolve as the virus itself does, and as organizations respond to emerging threats.

by rdtwo 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Covid is not airborne Which public health authority objects to this statement?

leereeves 4y ago
The WHO has a mixed record here. At first they said: > FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 Now they say it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  Wuhan Covid was technically airborne but did not have meaningful airborne spread because it needed a fairly high dose to infect. Once again, it's not that the scientists got it wrong, it's that the disease changed!
  - leereeves 4y ago
    So you're claiming that airborne transmission of early variants was possible but rare? Even if true, that's not what the WHO said.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jimmydorry 4y ago
The CDC disagreed up until May of last year. The WHO disagreed until December 2021. There is a significant overlap between all these parties of when airborne transmission was misinformation.
- leereeves 4y ago
  I think you have their position backwards. They originally agreed and said "Covid is not airborne", now they disagree. See the links in my other comment.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    Correct, I accidentally reversed it. The point of my comment was that there was a period where the WHO said one thing and the CDC said another and they were mutually exclusive. These were the two most prominent health authorities, and there were many more that changed their stances on different days. What is the single source of truth here? People were banned and deplatformed from social media for "spreading misinformation about COVID".
  - Auracle 4y ago
    Quite early on there were indications it was airborne. I distinctly remember a group of researchers making a stink that the CDC wasn’t changing their position in it. Honestly, I’m a bit amazed that isn’t something we can easily test. I’m no biologist but couldn’t we just take people sick with COVID in a room and have them breathe/talk/whatever with the equivalent of Petri dishes at differing distances?
- ScoobleDoodle 4y ago
  I think you got tripped up by the double negative. To clarify your response you might repeat your assumptions in whole and don’t rely on the context of what you’re replying to. Restate it all in your own message and words. Thank you for sharing.

selfhoster11 4y ago

Science had a better idea of what the virus does after a while, and so the guidance was changed. That doesn't make the initial guidance a lie. I won't defend the WHO (because they clearly did spread some misinformation at times), but the scientific community at large only changed its messaging because their information got better, not because they got "found out" as liars.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I strongly disagree. Most of these guidance were not set on scientific grounds to begin with, but based on political grounds. The science was always in the other direction for an unbiased reviewer. It is good that science ultimately won out, but I think it will be a long time before institutional credibility is restored.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Guidance is normative, not descriptive. Science itself cannot tell anyone what to do. No amount of "science" can tell you how to prioritize your messaging, mask production/distribution, and hospital usage. Why is it inherently bad that the early pandemic guidance had a political valence? Obviously, no one likes to be misled, but the CDC and WHO were making decisions that would affect billions of people in the absence of any US leadership.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree that there is science and public policy. The two are different. Many choices are political and should be. For example, The tradeoff of how many deaths is it worth to keep open schools has no scientific answer. The problem is when lies are used to misrepresent the science to achieve a desirable policy outcome. The ultimate reason not to lie is that it undermines social trust and democracy.
- quest88 4y ago
  What was political? Convince me that people weren't doing the best they could with the information they had.

okprod 4y ago

One of the issues with this is not everyone is able to ignore conspiracy stuff, they take misinformation for information, and you get something like "masks don't work". Sort of like saying Fox News is harmless because we recognize it's news entertainment rather than news; there are many who believe it (or other sources) as news.

alexk307 4y ago

I think you need to understand that emerging novel viruses take time to understand. We still understand relatively little about covid, and to be upset with Twitter for doing it’s best at a time where emerging information is being blasted around the globe, is misplaced at best. Recommendations evolve as the virus itself does, and as organizations respond to emerging threats.