4 ms·

I really don't see how anyone can look at how covid proceeded and come to the conclusion that we need less trust in experts. "Thinking for yourself" was an exce

I really don't see how anyone can look at how covid proceeded and come to the conclusion that we need less trust in experts. "Thinking for yourself" was an excellent way to die of covid and to produce much longer, much higher peaks in your region of residence than you would otherwise have had. Places with populations that shut up and listened suppressed covid nearly entirely until the rise of the much-more-contagious Delta and Omicron, neither of which would have realistically arisen at all if the whole world had applied suppression of that magnitude. New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Korea, and China remained open for business throughout most of the pandemic precisely because they had strong institutions and because they successfully enforced expert consensus. Even within the US, the map of covid deaths is practically an electoral map, which is itself practically a map of trust in institutions. San Francisco had a death rate of 134 per 100k. King County (Seattle), 158. And less you think it's an urban/rural thing, rural Vermont sits in the 150s. Meanwhile, almost nowhere in the South or Great Plains is below 400 per 100k, and almost everywhere that is is a blue island amidst a sea of red. Raleigh-Durham, Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, and St. Louis are all visible clear as day on a map of death rates. Even if we assume that expert consensus got covid's origins wrong - a fact that is far from demonstrated - I will happily take a temporary error in a relatively unimportant fact about the virus' origins over hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and years of shutdowns that could have been avoided with better coordination any day. Experts are sometimes wrong, but from an outside-view, probabilistic standpoint, a person betting against expert consensus is almost always going to lose, especially if they are not themselves an expert.

toomim 3y ago
The experts began by saying "Don't wear masks." The CDC and the Surgeon General told all Americans to stop wearing masks. I was one of the few people who thought for myself, read the studies, saw that all evidence in Korea and China pointed to this being an airborn pathogen, and learned how the electrostatic field in melt-blown fabric attracted covid particulates to it and filtered them from the air. I was one of the few people wearing masks, staying safe, back in February when everyone looked at me crazy for wearing masks, because I was going against what the experts said. I don't see how you can go through that period where the experts are telling you the opposite of the truth, and then continue to believe them.
- finite_depth 3y ago
  That was, what, like one month at the very start? Masks were a fixture in my household by April or May, as I recall. Again, "beating the experts one time" does not mean that betting against them is a good bet. For every person that fits your description there are a hundred not getting vaccinated because they've "done their research". The literal comment right below mine is some anti-vax nonsense right here on HN, in a community that is overwhelmingly better-educated than the public at large.
  - slater 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - toomim 3y ago
      Here's the echo chamber in action! Close your ears to dissent, children. Preserve the echo chamber!
      - slater 3y ago
        It’s not worth listening to “dissent” if it’s coming from the “I do my own research“ crowd. Whom should I believe, folks who’ve gone through rigorous university education and have dedicated their lives to providing scientific progress? Orrrrrrr some dildo who read some clickbait nonsense on HealthTruthFauciSux.net? Choices, choices.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        hotdogscout 3y ago
        Ignoring the appeal to authority, do you do research? I've yet to meet someone that does and doesn't see scientific institutions as flawed and human with results often driven by interpersonal and political pressures. What's your expectation of "rigorous university education"? I attended the best University of South America and I rarely see research be conducted to standards I would call rigorous. [ I personally do think it's extremely important to listen to the "I do my own research" crowd because that's what the scientific process demands. Sadly "science" for the left is like "freedom" for the right, a big fat jingle. ]
somenameforme 3y ago
The entire point is that artificial consensus destroys trust. There's never such thing as "unified front" on any sort of remotely debatable topic. Instead that front is often just created by unfairly shutting down dissenting voices which has a paradoxical effect of elevating those very voices, even if not entirely deserved - something directly adjacent to the Streisand Effect.
Izkata 3y ago
> the much-more-contagious Delta and Omicron, neither of which would have realistically arisen at all if Omicron was an offshoot of Wuhan or Alpha, most likely jump back from an animal reservoir to humans (rats being the best theory) - even though it came after Delta, it was not a descendant of Delta. Even if we'd completely wiped out the virus in humans by the end of 2020, it could still have happened. Deer, minks, cats, rats, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more - it was clear these animal reservoirs existed in 2020 and once we knew that, it was obvious to everyone except the experts that we can't eliminate this virus. There'd just be another spillover later. Oh, and a note on the "more contagious" part - Delta wasn't more contagious than what came before it. It's the common line but only works because the previous variants were revised downwards to make room for Delta. The earliest R0 estimate back in like Jan/Feb 2020 was 5 or 6, which was almost immediately revised downwards to 3 or 4 because that was seen as too high. Mid-year the estimate went back up to 5/6 for a short time, then at the end of the year when Delta was identified (but not yet named Delta), they gave the 5/6 range to Delta and put the previous variants back at 3/4.

toomim 3y ago

The experts began by saying "Don't wear masks." The CDC and the Surgeon General told all Americans to stop wearing masks. I was one of the few people who thought for myself, read the studies, saw that all evidence in Korea and China pointed to this being an airborn pathogen, and learned how the electrostatic field in melt-blown fabric attracted covid particulates to it and filtered them from the air. I was one of the few people wearing masks, staying safe, back in February when everyone looked at me crazy for wearing masks, because I was going against what the experts said. I don't see how you can go through that period where the experts are telling you the opposite of the truth, and then continue to believe them.

finite_depth 3y ago
That was, what, like one month at the very start? Masks were a fixture in my household by April or May, as I recall. Again, "beating the experts one time" does not mean that betting against them is a good bet. For every person that fits your description there are a hundred not getting vaccinated because they've "done their research". The literal comment right below mine is some anti-vax nonsense right here on HN, in a community that is overwhelmingly better-educated than the public at large.
- slater 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - toomim 3y ago
    Here's the echo chamber in action! Close your ears to dissent, children. Preserve the echo chamber!
    - slater 3y ago
      It’s not worth listening to “dissent” if it’s coming from the “I do my own research“ crowd. Whom should I believe, folks who’ve gone through rigorous university education and have dedicated their lives to providing scientific progress? Orrrrrrr some dildo who read some clickbait nonsense on HealthTruthFauciSux.net? Choices, choices.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - hotdogscout 3y ago
        Ignoring the appeal to authority, do you do research? I've yet to meet someone that does and doesn't see scientific institutions as flawed and human with results often driven by interpersonal and political pressures. What's your expectation of "rigorous university education"? I attended the best University of South America and I rarely see research be conducted to standards I would call rigorous. [ I personally do think it's extremely important to listen to the "I do my own research" crowd because that's what the scientific process demands. Sadly "science" for the left is like "freedom" for the right, a big fat jingle. ]

somenameforme 3y ago

The entire point is that artificial consensus destroys trust. There's never such thing as "unified front" on any sort of remotely debatable topic. Instead that front is often just created by unfairly shutting down dissenting voices which has a paradoxical effect of elevating those very voices, even if not entirely deserved - something directly adjacent to the Streisand Effect.

Izkata 3y ago

> the much-more-contagious Delta and Omicron, neither of which would have realistically arisen at all if Omicron was an offshoot of Wuhan or Alpha, most likely jump back from an animal reservoir to humans (rats being the best theory) - even though it came after Delta, it was not a descendant of Delta. Even if we'd completely wiped out the virus in humans by the end of 2020, it could still have happened. Deer, minks, cats, rats, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more - it was clear these animal reservoirs existed in 2020 and once we knew that, it was obvious to everyone except the experts that we can't eliminate this virus. There'd just be another spillover later. Oh, and a note on the "more contagious" part - Delta wasn't more contagious than what came before it. It's the common line but only works because the previous variants were revised downwards to make room for Delta. The earliest R0 estimate back in like Jan/Feb 2020 was 5 or 6, which was almost immediately revised downwards to 3 or 4 because that was seen as too high. Mid-year the estimate went back up to 5/6 for a short time, then at the end of the year when Delta was identified (but not yet named Delta), they gave the 5/6 range to Delta and put the previous variants back at 3/4.