56 ms·
> Data that has come out since does seem to indicate it lowers transmission. You can't retroactively justify a lie. If I think Bob is in jail and I tell you he
by pessimizer 3y ago
> Data that has come out since does seem to indicate it lowers transmission.
You can't retroactively justify a lie. If I think Bob is in jail and I tell you he's not in jail, it doesn't matter later if he turned out never to have been in jail.
The claims that were being made, and being used to push policy, were at the time something that hadn't even been tested.
- didibus 3y agoI was asking clarification, because it all depends what we mean about truth and lie here. If we're saying that reduction in transmission is a lie, well that might be false, as data now seem to indicate it does cause reduced transmission. But if we're saying people claimed that they ran a trial specifically to investigate the effect on transmission, when no such trial took place, than I agree, this would be a lie. Now I never felt like "official" sources said there were trials about transmission conducted and that proved massive reduction in transmission. But I can believe maybe there was one somewhere. I do agree though that policies were made with claims that had sometimes poor evidence or incomplete data and experimentation. And we should all wonder and discuss what could have been done policy wise that would have been better. Was acting fast on low confidence better than waiting for high confidence? Would more educating and less regulating have had better results? Etc.