5 ms·

> Propping it up as dogmatic truth that must be trusted and never investigated is probably the most anti-scientific thing you can do. Honestly, that's what all

> Propping it up as dogmatic truth that must be trusted and never investigated is probably the most anti-scientific thing you can do. Honestly, that's what all the science-denying cranks say. You may not be such a person, but you need to be aware of the mindset of many people making this claim. With regards to the retardation of the spread of infectious disease, that is robust science. We've spent over 100 years developing and practicing it, too. Our success rate has been incredible. Also, this wasn't even humankind's first rodeo with the SARS coronavirus. We knew what we needed to do, we failed to do it, and hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly lost their life as a result. That's the nightmare.

aredox 2y ago
Not only infection disease science is robust with humans, but it is also a veterinary science. And with livestock outnumbering humans and being a huge industry where every dollar counts, we have a good idea on the efficiency of e.g. vaccines.
marginalia_nu 2y ago
> Honestly, that's what all the science-denying cranks say. You may not be such a person, but you need to be aware of the mindset of many people making this claim. It's also what science advocates like e.g. Carl Sagan[1] says, because it's true. "Science deniers" may be wrong about other things, but not about this. The truth does not fear questions, and does not require people to believe in it. > With regards to the retardation of the spread of infectious disease, that is robust science. We've spent over 100 years developing and practicing it, too. Our success rate has been incredible. We don't seem to really be making significant headway stopping these respiratory diseases. There's a new seasonal influenza every year, and then there's the common cold sloshing around on top of that. These annual global epidemics seem to be washing over us with such regularity they're a fact of life in modern society. Most of them less severe than Covid, for certain, but I think you're overstating our ability to stop them. [1] e.g. "If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along."
- taylodl 2y ago
  > There's a new seasonal influenza every year ...and? We've deemed it far more cost-effective to vaccinate the population against the new flu variants that continually emerge. Our strategy changes when we have no vaccine, and the disease is particularly virulent. > there's the common cold sloshing around on top of that ditto with flu. Common cold is an annoyance, not a disease that we must eradicate. The cost to do so would be astronomical compared to the benefit. Meanwhile, how many people do you know suffering from TB? Skepticism is one thing; ignorance is an entirely different animal altogether. One challenge facing us is a populace poorly educated in science is increasingly unable to differentiate between the two.
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    If we had a $1 pill you could take that innoculated you against the common cold, it would be cheap and worthwhile to eradicate. These things are expensive exactly because we have poor tools to deal with them. TB on the other hand mostly went away because we developed a working vaccine. > Skepticism is one thing; ignorance is an entirely different animal altogether. One challenge facing us is a populace poorly educated in science is increasingly unable to differentiate between the two. The solution to poor scientific understanding is not to bully people into beleiving in science as an article of faith, but to fix the scientific education so that's not necessary.
    - taylodl 2y ago
      > If we had a $1 pill you could take that innoculated you against the common cold, it would be cheap and worthwhile to eradicate. That's looking at the wrong side of the equation and is tantamount to wishful thinking. The correct side of the equation is looking at the billions and billions of dollars you would have to spend developing that $1 pill. That is the actual cost to achieve. There are better things to do with our time and money.
      - dent9876543 2y ago
        If our hypothetical $1 common cold pill turns out anything like our COVID pill, it will only be effective for a few months before making you marginally more susceptible than you were before.

aredox 2y ago

Not only infection disease science is robust with humans, but it is also a veterinary science. And with livestock outnumbering humans and being a huge industry where every dollar counts, we have a good idea on the efficiency of e.g. vaccines.

marginalia_nu 2y ago

> Honestly, that's what all the science-denying cranks say. You may not be such a person, but you need to be aware of the mindset of many people making this claim. It's also what science advocates like e.g. Carl Sagan[1] says, because it's true. "Science deniers" may be wrong about other things, but not about this. The truth does not fear questions, and does not require people to believe in it. > With regards to the retardation of the spread of infectious disease, that is robust science. We've spent over 100 years developing and practicing it, too. Our success rate has been incredible. We don't seem to really be making significant headway stopping these respiratory diseases. There's a new seasonal influenza every year, and then there's the common cold sloshing around on top of that. These annual global epidemics seem to be washing over us with such regularity they're a fact of life in modern society. Most of them less severe than Covid, for certain, but I think you're overstating our ability to stop them. [1] e.g. "If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along."

taylodl 2y ago
> There's a new seasonal influenza every year ...and? We've deemed it far more cost-effective to vaccinate the population against the new flu variants that continually emerge. Our strategy changes when we have no vaccine, and the disease is particularly virulent. > there's the common cold sloshing around on top of that ditto with flu. Common cold is an annoyance, not a disease that we must eradicate. The cost to do so would be astronomical compared to the benefit. Meanwhile, how many people do you know suffering from TB? Skepticism is one thing; ignorance is an entirely different animal altogether. One challenge facing us is a populace poorly educated in science is increasingly unable to differentiate between the two.
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  If we had a $1 pill you could take that innoculated you against the common cold, it would be cheap and worthwhile to eradicate. These things are expensive exactly because we have poor tools to deal with them. TB on the other hand mostly went away because we developed a working vaccine. > Skepticism is one thing; ignorance is an entirely different animal altogether. One challenge facing us is a populace poorly educated in science is increasingly unable to differentiate between the two. The solution to poor scientific understanding is not to bully people into beleiving in science as an article of faith, but to fix the scientific education so that's not necessary.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    > If we had a $1 pill you could take that innoculated you against the common cold, it would be cheap and worthwhile to eradicate. That's looking at the wrong side of the equation and is tantamount to wishful thinking. The correct side of the equation is looking at the billions and billions of dollars you would have to spend developing that $1 pill. That is the actual cost to achieve. There are better things to do with our time and money.
    - dent9876543 2y ago
      If our hypothetical $1 common cold pill turns out anything like our COVID pill, it will only be effective for a few months before making you marginally more susceptible than you were before.