4 ms·

> And at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, I watched in alarm as public trust in science disintegrated. It is not that common that science airs their dirty

by sampo 2y ago

> And at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, I watched in alarm as public trust in science disintegrated. It is not that common that science airs their dirty laundry out in the public. With covid, the debates and disagreements were very public. Was covid-19 a severe disease or "just a flu"? Does it spread primarily by droplets, or is it airborne? Do masks work, or not? Were the lockdowns useful, or not? Did the border closures help, or not? Did the virus likely escape from a laboratory, or jump to humans from a natural animal population? Is long covid a serious condition, or is it just psychological? There isn't a single policy-relevant question about covid-19, where you don't have one camp of highly-credentialed experts in medical science and epidemiology arguing for A, and another camp of equally highly-credentialed experts arguing for B. People are not that stupid. They can see that science doesn't agree on pretty much anything on covid. And not just tiny minutiae, but about the big, relevant questions. So the loss of public trust is well-earned. Epidemiology just isn't nearly as well developed a science as we thought it to be. And if other sciences only take a meta level approach of "please trust the science", like the article author Paul Sutter here, it doesn't help. Maybe, if other sciences would call epidemiology out "please trust our science at least, we're not as bad as epidemiology", it could help some.

CuriousCosmic 2y ago
> Was covid-19 a severe disease or "just a flu"? Does it spread primarily by droplets, or is it airborne? Do masks work, or not? Were the lockdowns useful, or not? Did the border closures help, or not? Did the virus likely escape from a laboratory, or jump to humans from a natural animal population? Is long covid a serious condition, or is it just psychological? > There isn't a single policy-relevant question about covid-19, where you don't have one camp of highly-credentialed experts in medical science and epidemiology arguing for A, and another camp of equally highly-credentialed experts arguing for B. A big problem with this is that a lot of these questions had your experts agreeing on the premise but the point being lost with disagreements above the actual premise. > Was covid-19 a severe disease or "just a flu"? The answer is both because the flu is also a severe illness, especially without vaccination (however still potentially even with it). So you had one side arguing that we should be treating it like the flu and the other side arguing for much harsher restrictions that we should also be taking for dangerous new flu variants. > Does it spread primarily by droplets, or is it airborne? And here again the answer is both. As a technicality it spreads via droplets however it still effectively spreads on very fine, aerosol-ized droplets so within the context of a normal person it's basically airborne (as just being in the same confined space can cause infection). > Do masks work, or not? Again the answer is both. Masks are extremely effective at preventing spread of disease. But they generally do little to protect you unless you have very specific types of well fitted masks. So do they work? Yes. Will they keep you from getting sick? Probably no. > Did the border closures help, or not? And both again. Did they help? Yes. Were they done too late for true containment? Yes. Did they help slow the spread of variants across borders? Yes. In the way they were done (i.e. too little too late), were they worth the cost? Maybe not. > Did the virus likely escape from a laboratory, or jump to humans from a natural animal population? Skipping this one because it's less medical science and more a question for investigation/history/politics. > Is long covid a serious condition, or is it just psychological? Both. Long term damage from covid is serious. Especially for those who got the more severe covid variants without a vaccine. But then there's also much harder to quantify damage from covid that sticks around for a long time. And in a lot of cases it looks a lot like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome which unfortunately also has the misfounded "it's just psychological" stigma attached to it. And so the bigger issue during this whole event was that you had professionals trying to hold these discussions at a level that your average American could follow along with from home. This unfortunately meant throwing away a lot of nuance and as a result disagreements over smaller points were reinterpreted as disagreements over the fundamental premise instead.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
The demonstrated lack of scientific agreement was not the problem. People are ok with that. The problem was that those who held the levers of power instituted polices as if there there was no disagreement. If you’re not sure whether community mask mandates will materially alter the trajectory of a pandemic, you can encourage masks, but you cannot — at least in a liberal democracy — require masks. Same goes for public messaging. If you’re not sure vaccinations will stop viral transmission in its tracks, you cannot claim it will, as Dr. Anthony Fauci did. Trust in public health authorities thus has been severely compromised, as well as trust in scientists who as a whole proved too much invested in marginal protections to their personal health and community standing, and too little in their role as dispassionate scientific observers.

by sampo 2y ago

CuriousCosmic 2y ago

> Was covid-19 a severe disease or "just a flu"? Does it spread primarily by droplets, or is it airborne? Do masks work, or not? Were the lockdowns useful, or not? Did the border closures help, or not? Did the virus likely escape from a laboratory, or jump to humans from a natural animal population? Is long covid a serious condition, or is it just psychological? > There isn't a single policy-relevant question about covid-19, where you don't have one camp of highly-credentialed experts in medical science and epidemiology arguing for A, and another camp of equally highly-credentialed experts arguing for B. A big problem with this is that a lot of these questions had your experts agreeing on the premise but the point being lost with disagreements above the actual premise. > Was covid-19 a severe disease or "just a flu"? The answer is both because the flu is also a severe illness, especially without vaccination (however still potentially even with it). So you had one side arguing that we should be treating it like the flu and the other side arguing for much harsher restrictions that we should also be taking for dangerous new flu variants. > Does it spread primarily by droplets, or is it airborne? And here again the answer is both. As a technicality it spreads via droplets however it still effectively spreads on very fine, aerosol-ized droplets so within the context of a normal person it's basically airborne (as just being in the same confined space can cause infection). > Do masks work, or not? Again the answer is both. Masks are extremely effective at preventing spread of disease. But they generally do little to protect you unless you have very specific types of well fitted masks. So do they work? Yes. Will they keep you from getting sick? Probably no. > Did the border closures help, or not? And both again. Did they help? Yes. Were they done too late for true containment? Yes. Did they help slow the spread of variants across borders? Yes. In the way they were done (i.e. too little too late), were they worth the cost? Maybe not. > Did the virus likely escape from a laboratory, or jump to humans from a natural animal population? Skipping this one because it's less medical science and more a question for investigation/history/politics. > Is long covid a serious condition, or is it just psychological? Both. Long term damage from covid is serious. Especially for those who got the more severe covid variants without a vaccine. But then there's also much harder to quantify damage from covid that sticks around for a long time. And in a lot of cases it looks a lot like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome which unfortunately also has the misfounded "it's just psychological" stigma attached to it. And so the bigger issue during this whole event was that you had professionals trying to hold these discussions at a level that your average American could follow along with from home. This unfortunately meant throwing away a lot of nuance and as a result disagreements over smaller points were reinterpreted as disagreements over the fundamental premise instead.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

The demonstrated lack of scientific agreement was not the problem. People are ok with that. The problem was that those who held the levers of power instituted polices as if there there was no disagreement. If you’re not sure whether community mask mandates will materially alter the trajectory of a pandemic, you can encourage masks, but you cannot — at least in a liberal democracy — require masks. Same goes for public messaging. If you’re not sure vaccinations will stop viral transmission in its tracks, you cannot claim it will, as Dr. Anthony Fauci did. Trust in public health authorities thus has been severely compromised, as well as trust in scientists who as a whole proved too much invested in marginal protections to their personal health and community standing, and too little in their role as dispassionate scientific observers.