5 ms·

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

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. ]
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        > "I do my own research" This suffers from the same issue as people calling blogs or whatever "journalism" (or worse, "reporting") when its nothing more than reading what other people wrote and commenting on it. Actual reporting involves going into the field, collecting information at the site, from people and devices that are there. And so it is for research, not always, but quite often, and almost always when it really matters. You don't do "research" by reading around, certainly not in biomedical fields. You need a lab, you need samples, you need hypotheses, you need experiments. Yes, yes, I know that sometimes meta-analysis turns up something interesting. It's useful, but it's not the rule, and its not "research".
        hotdogscout 3y ago
        Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in studies can be done by individuals and are a relevant contribution to the scientific process, for example.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        In a broad sense, I agree. But in the narrow sense, another Medium or Substack on why Missener et al. (invented names) haven't done their homework (let alone tweeting about it) is not a useful part of the scientific process. Science faces a bit of a quandry: on the one hand, it is now more and more difficult to be an actual expert in more than a tiny sub-niche of a knowledge domain; on the other hand, changes in communication and distribution make it possible for many more people to have some awareness of things going on in science, and to point out errors or raise questions, at a level that the research teams cannot sensibly respond to. Nevertheless, I still see a profound distinction between the well funded and semi-organized attempts to discredit research and knowledge that raises problems for the interests of wealth and power, and good faith acknowledgement of the many problems with the social practice of science and the reproduceability crisis.
    - tbrownaw 3y ago
      Trust isn't only about credentials (or competence which credentials are supposedly meant to be a proxy for), but also honesty. Get caught lying (or being generally sus, like say trying to hide conflicts of interest) enough times, and it doesn't matter if you're actually competent (or credentialed).
      - defrost 3y ago
        > or being generally sus, like say trying to hide conflicts of interest Good point. It's worth reminding all that the vast overwhelming bulk of vaccine and COVID disinformation trafficking on twitter and social media could all be traced back to about 12 individual sources who were SEO'ing madly to sow distrust and sell their own brands of snake oil.
    - toomim 3y ago
      It's not worth listening to people who ... think? You only want to listen to people who regurgitate what the authorities tell them to think?
      - slater 3y ago
        Yep, that's exactly what I said. In that same vein, TIL scientists don't think. Good grief, I should've taken my own advice further up in this thread.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    No. The dissent has been aired. The points have been discussed. Over and over and over. There's no echo chamber. The problem is that some people don't want to accept the consensus view that emerges from the social practice of science. They want to keep asking the same questions, ignoring rebuttals, demanding answers, assigning blame. You don't have to accept the consensus view. But you do have to accept that the consensus view, and you being ignored by those that do accept it, doesn't happen in 10 minutes. There was no echo chamber, dissent was tackled, and now those particular dissents are handled with disrespect, maybe. That's life, or least that's the social practice of science. And guess what, every once in a while, the minority report is correct!
tobiasSoftware 3y ago
The CDC was recommending against KN95 and N95 masks even after Omicron, so it was more like 2 years, not one month. I was also someone who wore proper masks against the advice of experts. I agree that going with the experts is the best course of action for the general public. We need to be able to disagree with experts, but we need to be able to do it in an informed manner, with proper research to back up the ideas. However, most of the general public is unable to do so.
iraqmtpizza 3y ago
Beating the experts? They knowingly lied about medical science in a matter of life and death with a straight face to millions of people. And you line up and kiss the ring and say thank you for the nudging, may I have another?
- dinvlad 3y ago
  Sorry, what did they lie about? Not sure I follow (and don't have access to the article or the archive links, it seems..)
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material." "And given that that's the case, now when we're talking about vaccinated people being indoors in settings where you don't know what the status is, particularly in an area, as you mentioned correctly, that has a high degree of protection, the recommendation is that you wear a mask even indoors, even if you're vaccinated." The only thing that changed was that people were vaccinated en masse and the virus had become even more transmissible. So that whatever infinitesimal effect the mask had before, against the delta variant it was now beyond useless. I could sit here all day and list more and more deliberate falsehoods, but they're well-documented and no serious person denies that there was extensive lying by experts for political and social purposes under the guise of dispassionately relaying the most credible and up-to-date medical information.

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. ]
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      > "I do my own research" This suffers from the same issue as people calling blogs or whatever "journalism" (or worse, "reporting") when its nothing more than reading what other people wrote and commenting on it. Actual reporting involves going into the field, collecting information at the site, from people and devices that are there. And so it is for research, not always, but quite often, and almost always when it really matters. You don't do "research" by reading around, certainly not in biomedical fields. You need a lab, you need samples, you need hypotheses, you need experiments. Yes, yes, I know that sometimes meta-analysis turns up something interesting. It's useful, but it's not the rule, and its not "research".
      - hotdogscout 3y ago
        Pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in studies can be done by individuals and are a relevant contribution to the scientific process, for example.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        In a broad sense, I agree. But in the narrow sense, another Medium or Substack on why Missener et al. (invented names) haven't done their homework (let alone tweeting about it) is not a useful part of the scientific process. Science faces a bit of a quandry: on the one hand, it is now more and more difficult to be an actual expert in more than a tiny sub-niche of a knowledge domain; on the other hand, changes in communication and distribution make it possible for many more people to have some awareness of things going on in science, and to point out errors or raise questions, at a level that the research teams cannot sensibly respond to. Nevertheless, I still see a profound distinction between the well funded and semi-organized attempts to discredit research and knowledge that raises problems for the interests of wealth and power, and good faith acknowledgement of the many problems with the social practice of science and the reproduceability crisis.
  - tbrownaw 3y ago
    Trust isn't only about credentials (or competence which credentials are supposedly meant to be a proxy for), but also honesty. Get caught lying (or being generally sus, like say trying to hide conflicts of interest) enough times, and it doesn't matter if you're actually competent (or credentialed).
    - defrost 3y ago
      > or being generally sus, like say trying to hide conflicts of interest Good point. It's worth reminding all that the vast overwhelming bulk of vaccine and COVID disinformation trafficking on twitter and social media could all be traced back to about 12 individual sources who were SEO'ing madly to sow distrust and sell their own brands of snake oil.
  - toomim 3y ago
    It's not worth listening to people who ... think? You only want to listen to people who regurgitate what the authorities tell them to think?
    - slater 3y ago
      Yep, that's exactly what I said. In that same vein, TIL scientists don't think. Good grief, I should've taken my own advice further up in this thread.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  No. The dissent has been aired. The points have been discussed. Over and over and over. There's no echo chamber. The problem is that some people don't want to accept the consensus view that emerges from the social practice of science. They want to keep asking the same questions, ignoring rebuttals, demanding answers, assigning blame. You don't have to accept the consensus view. But you do have to accept that the consensus view, and you being ignored by those that do accept it, doesn't happen in 10 minutes. There was no echo chamber, dissent was tackled, and now those particular dissents are handled with disrespect, maybe. That's life, or least that's the social practice of science. And guess what, every once in a while, the minority report is correct!

tobiasSoftware 3y ago

The CDC was recommending against KN95 and N95 masks even after Omicron, so it was more like 2 years, not one month. I was also someone who wore proper masks against the advice of experts. I agree that going with the experts is the best course of action for the general public. We need to be able to disagree with experts, but we need to be able to do it in an informed manner, with proper research to back up the ideas. However, most of the general public is unable to do so.

iraqmtpizza 3y ago

Beating the experts? They knowingly lied about medical science in a matter of life and death with a straight face to millions of people. And you line up and kiss the ring and say thank you for the nudging, may I have another?

dinvlad 3y ago
Sorry, what did they lie about? Not sure I follow (and don't have access to the article or the archive links, it seems..)
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material." "And given that that's the case, now when we're talking about vaccinated people being indoors in settings where you don't know what the status is, particularly in an area, as you mentioned correctly, that has a high degree of protection, the recommendation is that you wear a mask even indoors, even if you're vaccinated." The only thing that changed was that people were vaccinated en masse and the virus had become even more transmissible. So that whatever infinitesimal effect the mask had before, against the delta variant it was now beyond useless. I could sit here all day and list more and more deliberate falsehoods, but they're well-documented and no serious person denies that there was extensive lying by experts for political and social purposes under the guise of dispassionately relaying the most credible and up-to-date medical information.