4 ms·

Emotionally, it was horrible. Societally, it was depressing to see that we'll never be able to tackle any true large problems, we can't even agree on wearing a

Emotionally, it was horrible. Societally, it was depressing to see that we'll never be able to tackle any true large problems, we can't even agree on wearing a piece of paper to protect fellow humans. But scientifically? Yeah, I'll go with "exciting". The field seemed to move at a tremendous speed, or at least that's how it looked to me as an outsider. Sequencing within less than a week, extremely rapid movement on the mRNA front (and really, the whole vaccination field - 200 candidates in 9 months), revamped understanding of aerosol transmission, leaps in rapid modelling, tremendous progress in terms of test development, growth in international collaboration, progress in the (public) understanding of chronic diseases, scaling up of wastewater monitoring, ... Definitely exciting.

itsoktocry 3y ago
>But scientifically? Yeah, I'll go with "exciting". The field seemed to move at a tremendous speed, or at least that's how it looked to me as an outsider. The practical science may have been exciting. Unfortunately "The Science" has been forever tainted thanks to secrets, tight-lips, mis-direction and "just trust us". I think Covid was a net-negative for science.
- groby_b 3y ago
  You're referring to politics. The science was pretty clear the entire time.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Science served us well enough that we're all still commenting here. It's the prevention paradox all over again, if science had not done its work you'd be in a much better position to appreciate the difference that it - and healthcare - made but then you might not have made it at all... science definitely did not let us down. Who did let us down: the people that were making things worse from day #1 by stirring the pot against science.
  - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
    > Who did let us down: the people that were making things worse from day #1 by stirring the pot against science. What is the solution to this? The framing seems way too simplistic to ever be useful. It makes it seem as though there was just the Good side that had all the answers all along, and the Bad side who just needed to do what the Good side said. In reality, it all came down to "who do you trust to both have your best interests at heart and to also be competent enough to achieve those best interests". Turns out those aren't easy questions, and that people are naturally going to arrive at different answers for all sorts of reasons, and I think very few of them look like "boo science".
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      There is no solution to this other than massive investment in education. And that isn't going to happen in our current world.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        Country? Yes. World? I'm not so sure.
    - groby_b 3y ago
      "It makes it seem as though there was just the Good side that had all the answers all along" That, right there, is where so many people went wrong and what was blatantly exploited by grifters up and down the chain. The side of science didn't "have answers all along", but it was willing to learn and change. And no, it wasn't "boo science". It was, to a large extent, political maneuvering using science as a convenient scape goat, because whenever science learned, it got turned into a "see, they don't know either". And, of course, with a large helping of grifters making money off the ensuing confusion. In reality, it came down to seeing who was willing to change their mind in the face of new evidence, and it was a pretty clear signal. (It was not noise free, absolutely, but it was not extremely hard to read, either - if folks had a basic amount of scientific education. There's your solution, too)

itsoktocry 3y ago

>But scientifically? Yeah, I'll go with "exciting". The field seemed to move at a tremendous speed, or at least that's how it looked to me as an outsider. The practical science may have been exciting. Unfortunately "The Science" has been forever tainted thanks to secrets, tight-lips, mis-direction and "just trust us". I think Covid was a net-negative for science.

groby_b 3y ago
You're referring to politics. The science was pretty clear the entire time.
jacquesm 3y ago
Science served us well enough that we're all still commenting here. It's the prevention paradox all over again, if science had not done its work you'd be in a much better position to appreciate the difference that it - and healthcare - made but then you might not have made it at all... science definitely did not let us down. Who did let us down: the people that were making things worse from day #1 by stirring the pot against science.
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  > Who did let us down: the people that were making things worse from day #1 by stirring the pot against science. What is the solution to this? The framing seems way too simplistic to ever be useful. It makes it seem as though there was just the Good side that had all the answers all along, and the Bad side who just needed to do what the Good side said. In reality, it all came down to "who do you trust to both have your best interests at heart and to also be competent enough to achieve those best interests". Turns out those aren't easy questions, and that people are naturally going to arrive at different answers for all sorts of reasons, and I think very few of them look like "boo science".
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    There is no solution to this other than massive investment in education. And that isn't going to happen in our current world.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Country? Yes. World? I'm not so sure.
  - groby_b 3y ago
    "It makes it seem as though there was just the Good side that had all the answers all along" That, right there, is where so many people went wrong and what was blatantly exploited by grifters up and down the chain. The side of science didn't "have answers all along", but it was willing to learn and change. And no, it wasn't "boo science". It was, to a large extent, political maneuvering using science as a convenient scape goat, because whenever science learned, it got turned into a "see, they don't know either". And, of course, with a large helping of grifters making money off the ensuing confusion. In reality, it came down to seeing who was willing to change their mind in the face of new evidence, and it was a pretty clear signal. (It was not noise free, absolutely, but it was not extremely hard to read, either - if folks had a basic amount of scientific education. There's your solution, too)