3 ms·

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 scientifi

by 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.

by carlmr 3y ago

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.