3 ms·

I don't like being lied or condescended to, just because most people can't handle the information. Also, it often backfires. Like, in early 2020, when the CDC

I don't like being lied or condescended to, just because most people can't handle the information. Also, it often backfires. Like, in early 2020, when the CDC said masks were unnecessary, then that N95s were unnecessary, it was glaringly obvious that this was propaganda to keep the public from panic-buying PPE and causing shortages. Some people believed them, took inadequate protections, got sick or died. It led to ineffective safety policies. It torched the CDC's credibility right out of the gate. They got called out later for flip-flopping. It led to "trust the science" being so ridiculed. Mostly, I got mad that it was such an obvious lie.

avereveard 3y ago
This. The many little white lies killed trust in institutions. People knew things were not adding up. The mistrust drive them to search and search for answers, and if you search long enough on internet, something will turn up because search engine don't have discernment. That created the breeding ground for conspiracy theorist to gain unprecedented audience.
- carlmr 3y ago
  >if you search long enough on internet, something will turn up Next crisis like this with chatGPT will be way more of this, imagine all the hallucinations.
plagiarist 3y ago
How can that be the reason "trust the science" is ridiculed when the people scoffing also refused to wear any sort of mask?
- carlmr 3y ago
  It's ridiculed because trust was immediately violated, and trust is not what science is built on. However just being an everything skeptic without any scientific education is not good either. The problem was the politicization, the dishonesty, the corruption. Both camps were wrong plenty of times, none would admit to it, and public discourse suffered because neither side was willing to cede ground to actual science.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    My litmus test for whether someone is worth talking to about this is whether they need to vilify any particular institution or individual. It's intellectually nasty and petty to spend more effort on pointing fingers than working through systemic failures and fixes. As you said, everyone on all sides was in the wrong plenty of times. And about what you'd expect! Having to make big calls on a novel situation with uncertain science. Nobody lucks into 100% correctness.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    > The problem was the politicization, the dishonesty, the corruption. This one part is correct. For example, when they admitted to being wrong about masks after they had better information, lunatics claimed they were lying and corrupt. And they have been spreading wild-eyed propaganda to this day.
    - sterlind 3y ago
      It wasn't just about waiting for better information, though. The restaurant infection in Washington, where the spread of the virus matched convection currents from the air conditioning, along with the super spreader events from singing, etc. should have immediately made them suspect aerosol transmission. There were numerous, obvious clues about it from the beginning, but it took until late 2020 for them to acknowledge - far after independent virologists had raised alarms. The argument, as far as I can tell, was just that the effect of different kinds of masks on covid transmission hadn't yet been studied. Which means that data was a priority, sure, but recommending masks as an initial precaution against an extremely contagious novel respiratory virus just seems sensible.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      They knew from the start that masks were likely an effective prophylaxis. They lied to ensure medical frontliners had enough.

avereveard 3y ago

This. The many little white lies killed trust in institutions. People knew things were not adding up. The mistrust drive them to search and search for answers, and if you search long enough on internet, something will turn up because search engine don't have discernment. That created the breeding ground for conspiracy theorist to gain unprecedented audience.

carlmr 3y ago
>if you search long enough on internet, something will turn up Next crisis like this with chatGPT will be way more of this, imagine all the hallucinations.

plagiarist 3y ago

How can that be the reason "trust the science" is ridiculed when the people scoffing also refused to wear any sort of mask?

carlmr 3y ago
It's ridiculed because trust was immediately violated, and trust is not what science is built on. However just being an everything skeptic without any scientific education is not good either. The problem was the politicization, the dishonesty, the corruption. Both camps were wrong plenty of times, none would admit to it, and public discourse suffered because neither side was willing to cede ground to actual science.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  My litmus test for whether someone is worth talking to about this is whether they need to vilify any particular institution or individual. It's intellectually nasty and petty to spend more effort on pointing fingers than working through systemic failures and fixes. As you said, everyone on all sides was in the wrong plenty of times. And about what you'd expect! Having to make big calls on a novel situation with uncertain science. Nobody lucks into 100% correctness.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  > The problem was the politicization, the dishonesty, the corruption. This one part is correct. For example, when they admitted to being wrong about masks after they had better information, lunatics claimed they were lying and corrupt. And they have been spreading wild-eyed propaganda to this day.
  - sterlind 3y ago
    It wasn't just about waiting for better information, though. The restaurant infection in Washington, where the spread of the virus matched convection currents from the air conditioning, along with the super spreader events from singing, etc. should have immediately made them suspect aerosol transmission. There were numerous, obvious clues about it from the beginning, but it took until late 2020 for them to acknowledge - far after independent virologists had raised alarms. The argument, as far as I can tell, was just that the effect of different kinds of masks on covid transmission hadn't yet been studied. Which means that data was a priority, sure, but recommending masks as an initial precaution against an extremely contagious novel respiratory virus just seems sensible.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    They knew from the start that masks were likely an effective prophylaxis. They lied to ensure medical frontliners had enough.