4 ms·

This exact argument can be made in the context of the Biden administration handling Covid. They demanded the party line be followed with regards to "the science

This exact argument can be made in the context of the Biden administration handling Covid. They demanded the party line be followed with regards to "the science" and vaccines, while ignoring what science actually is and attempting to silence anyone who tried to debate or question what was being purported as scientific fact or properly run scientific studies. Politics will always be partisan, its been escalating in the US for a while now. As long as the trend continues it will always seem like the current administration is the worst, by trend they are. That ignores how we got here though, and what comes next if nothing changes.

duxup 2y ago
What was the actual science? I also think Covid is nothing compared to the scale of my incompetence list. What I don’t understand is the nature of these types of comparisons, if someone feels the Covid restrictions were bad, they ok with this? Is that an argument even?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I'll use the vaccine tests as a good example, but there are plenty. The studies were of large cohorts, around 30k in each group if I remember correctly. They were only followed for roughly 1 month, as soon as enough subjects were symptomatic they lifted the veil and exposed which was the placebo group. Individuals weren't tested for a Covid infection unless they self-reported symptoms during the study. That structure of a study is fine for helping find the risk of immediate adverse effects of the vaccine. It doesn't day anything of how well spread is contained, how long the protection lasts, or the risk of long term adverse impact. All that to say those risks simply weren't known. There wasn't any reason to say they risks existed at any meaningful level, only that the scientific studies done didn't prove the claims often made with regards to the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
> attempting to silence anyone who tried to debate or question what was being purported as scientific fact or properly run scientific studies Was this more than just trying to get non-knowledgeable people to stop spreading rumours and lies? It makes complete sense to not be sucked into debate with people who base their ideas on YouTube videos, but dismissing actual research out of hand is foolish (unless that research is deliberately trying to push a single narrative such as the tobacco companies funding and directing research into the health effects of cigarettes).
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The lab leak hypothesis is an easy example. There were career scientists raising the concern that the virus may have leaked from a lab rather than a wet market. Fauci and those close to him made a point to shut them down and effectively demonize the idea of even raising such a concern. None of that had to do with YouTube.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    The lab leak hypothesis was highly politicised, but that's likely due to the international blame game that would arise from publishing too much speculation on the origin of the outbreak. That seems prudent to not be stirring up trouble unnecessarily. I can't see any similar rationalisation with lying about the NASA missions.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      And you just shined a light on the slippery slope of lying in politics. Its impossible to draw a line between what is a "reasonable" or "rational" lie when its so heavily tied to one's opinions. Its never going to happen, but the only reasonable solution in my view is for them to always tell the truth. Maybe they can't always tell the whole truth, but the bar should be that whatever they say is as factually accurate as they can be with what they know at the time.
      - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        If it's opinion based, then it's trickier to pin it down to being either truth or lie, but if the opinion goes against the opinion of knowledgeable experts then I think that should be communicated too so that people can make a more informed judgement. When the lies are about matters of fact, then politicians should be held to a similar standard as advertisers i.e. not allowed to just push completely false narratives without some consequence. Unfortunately it appears that the U.S. administration is frequently lying about factual issues such as with the NASA mission.

duxup 2y ago

What was the actual science? I also think Covid is nothing compared to the scale of my incompetence list. What I don’t understand is the nature of these types of comparisons, if someone feels the Covid restrictions were bad, they ok with this? Is that an argument even?

_heimdall 2y ago
I'll use the vaccine tests as a good example, but there are plenty. The studies were of large cohorts, around 30k in each group if I remember correctly. They were only followed for roughly 1 month, as soon as enough subjects were symptomatic they lifted the veil and exposed which was the placebo group. Individuals weren't tested for a Covid infection unless they self-reported symptoms during the study. That structure of a study is fine for helping find the risk of immediate adverse effects of the vaccine. It doesn't day anything of how well spread is contained, how long the protection lasts, or the risk of long term adverse impact. All that to say those risks simply weren't known. There wasn't any reason to say they risks existed at any meaningful level, only that the scientific studies done didn't prove the claims often made with regards to the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

> attempting to silence anyone who tried to debate or question what was being purported as scientific fact or properly run scientific studies Was this more than just trying to get non-knowledgeable people to stop spreading rumours and lies? It makes complete sense to not be sucked into debate with people who base their ideas on YouTube videos, but dismissing actual research out of hand is foolish (unless that research is deliberately trying to push a single narrative such as the tobacco companies funding and directing research into the health effects of cigarettes).

_heimdall 2y ago
The lab leak hypothesis is an easy example. There were career scientists raising the concern that the virus may have leaked from a lab rather than a wet market. Fauci and those close to him made a point to shut them down and effectively demonize the idea of even raising such a concern. None of that had to do with YouTube.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  The lab leak hypothesis was highly politicised, but that's likely due to the international blame game that would arise from publishing too much speculation on the origin of the outbreak. That seems prudent to not be stirring up trouble unnecessarily. I can't see any similar rationalisation with lying about the NASA missions.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    And you just shined a light on the slippery slope of lying in politics. Its impossible to draw a line between what is a "reasonable" or "rational" lie when its so heavily tied to one's opinions. Its never going to happen, but the only reasonable solution in my view is for them to always tell the truth. Maybe they can't always tell the whole truth, but the bar should be that whatever they say is as factually accurate as they can be with what they know at the time.
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      If it's opinion based, then it's trickier to pin it down to being either truth or lie, but if the opinion goes against the opinion of knowledgeable experts then I think that should be communicated too so that people can make a more informed judgement. When the lies are about matters of fact, then politicians should be held to a similar standard as advertisers i.e. not allowed to just push completely false narratives without some consequence. Unfortunately it appears that the U.S. administration is frequently lying about factual issues such as with the NASA mission.