5 ms·

I agree that a debate between a scientist and politician is silly and doesn't lead to a good faith discussion, and that the "come and defend your position" argu

I agree that a debate between a scientist and politician is silly and doesn't lead to a good faith discussion, and that the "come and defend your position" argument is disingenuous in that context. From what I can see though, Hotez is advocating political positions and using "science" as a cover. Even if he has experience in the scientific part of it, if he wants to get into the politics, he needs to engage with it, he can't just hide and say "science!". Regardless, the debate would be stupid. The issue is not the science, it's the government overreach. It would be stupid to hear RFK debate the effectiveness of vaccines, and stupid to hear Hotez pontificate about why forced vaccination or lockdowns are ok. I'd personally rather see a debate about the politics between two qualified people that doesn't sink to invoking "science" as relevant.

brodouevencode 3y ago
The problem is that the science became political when certain portions started advocating for things that weren't backed by science and had no fundamental groundwork of support. The six-foot rule literally came out of thin air.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Not really though, the 6-foot rule was based on probability of transmission at various distances for airborne/droplet viruses. Perhaps it's too conservative, but all of this is probability-based. It's mostly been validated as we did studies and metastudies throughout the pandemic -- likely could have been reduced to 3 feet as we learned more but a "6-foot rule" tends to result in maybe 4 or 5 feet distances so the initial guidance seems okay: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- troyvit 3y ago
  I think it's more accurate to say it came out of air slightly thickened by a virus that nobody really understood. All of us are sitting back three years later pontificating on how science overstepped its boundaries, politics used it as a club, and/or screwballs rose to prominence with (sometimes) baseless conspiracy theories[1]. Here in 2023 we're acting like people engaged in these acts mainly with negative intent. I think rather we were a society that was a afraid and didn't know what to do. We made a ton of mistakes and a bunch of silly decisions. A lot of them killed people. Some of them might have changed an election. Many of them also saved lives. [1] Like the lab leak theory. To me that concept has legs.
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> All of us are sitting back three years later pontificating on how science overstepped its boundaries, politics used it as a club, and/or screwballs rose to prominence with (sometimes) baseless conspiracy theories[1]. Here in 2023 we're acting like people engaged in these acts mainly with negative intent. I think rather we were a society that was a afraid and didn't know what to do. "Science" wasted a lot of its credibility by allowing itself to be "used as a club" to imbue certain policy positions with unwarranted confidence. In hindsight, that was a pretty bad mistake. Now people literally use "I believe in science" to state allegiance to certain political positions, which is not good.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      This is spot on.
wellpast 3y ago
Yes, and I would go further and say that most anything said about COVID in the public sphere is going to be far more a political statement than a scientific one. Even something like "vaccines work" is far more a political statement than a scientific statement. The domain of each relevant science is narrow. And so many areas of science are relevant to any person wanting to understand enough to know how personally to change their behavior in the face of a pandemic. An epidemiologist can say some very specific scientifically proved things. A virologist will say some others. A psychology researcher will say another. An education researcher, another - and so on. And then within these disciplines there will be various disagreements. Go further and science isn't enough. There are moral and ethical questions involved, such as how to balance hurting children and the poor to protect the elderly, etc. The idea that the public should "follow the science" is patently absurd as it has no meaning other than "follow my suggestions".

brodouevencode 3y ago

The problem is that the science became political when certain portions started advocating for things that weren't backed by science and had no fundamental groundwork of support. The six-foot rule literally came out of thin air.

mikeyouse 3y ago
Not really though, the 6-foot rule was based on probability of transmission at various distances for airborne/droplet viruses. Perhaps it's too conservative, but all of this is probability-based. It's mostly been validated as we did studies and metastudies throughout the pandemic -- likely could have been reduced to 3 feet as we learned more but a "6-foot rule" tends to result in maybe 4 or 5 feet distances so the initial guidance seems okay: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
troyvit 3y ago
I think it's more accurate to say it came out of air slightly thickened by a virus that nobody really understood. All of us are sitting back three years later pontificating on how science overstepped its boundaries, politics used it as a club, and/or screwballs rose to prominence with (sometimes) baseless conspiracy theories[1]. Here in 2023 we're acting like people engaged in these acts mainly with negative intent. I think rather we were a society that was a afraid and didn't know what to do. We made a ton of mistakes and a bunch of silly decisions. A lot of them killed people. Some of them might have changed an election. Many of them also saved lives. [1] Like the lab leak theory. To me that concept has legs.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> All of us are sitting back three years later pontificating on how science overstepped its boundaries, politics used it as a club, and/or screwballs rose to prominence with (sometimes) baseless conspiracy theories[1]. Here in 2023 we're acting like people engaged in these acts mainly with negative intent. I think rather we were a society that was a afraid and didn't know what to do. "Science" wasted a lot of its credibility by allowing itself to be "used as a club" to imbue certain policy positions with unwarranted confidence. In hindsight, that was a pretty bad mistake. Now people literally use "I believe in science" to state allegiance to certain political positions, which is not good.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    This is spot on.

wellpast 3y ago

Yes, and I would go further and say that most anything said about COVID in the public sphere is going to be far more a political statement than a scientific one. Even something like "vaccines work" is far more a political statement than a scientific statement. The domain of each relevant science is narrow. And so many areas of science are relevant to any person wanting to understand enough to know how personally to change their behavior in the face of a pandemic. An epidemiologist can say some very specific scientifically proved things. A virologist will say some others. A psychology researcher will say another. An education researcher, another - and so on. And then within these disciplines there will be various disagreements. Go further and science isn't enough. There are moral and ethical questions involved, such as how to balance hurting children and the poor to protect the elderly, etc. The idea that the public should "follow the science" is patently absurd as it has no meaning other than "follow my suggestions".