4 ms·

Yes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate. People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial

Yes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate. People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial results, learn how to read them with a bunch of unknown terms, and form a risk tolerance analysis. I know this. You know this. Everyone know this. The health and science communicators must improve how they communicate with the public.

Sammi 4mo ago
But they are! They are saying what is generally safe and what is not. Telling people the dry statistics won't help most people. Remember half of all people are below average in IQ. You need to paint with broad strokes if you want to reach most people.
- xboxnolifes 4mo ago
  Claiming that something is safe or not safe is not communicating risk. It is asserting a certain risk tolerance. "We have looked at the numbers and came to the conclusion that X is safe enough to use". This does not work if the people you are communicating with do not already trust your risk judgement. If it helps, substitute health officials and Healthcare with tech CEOs and tech products. Do you trust them when they claim that their products protect your privacy without laying out the evidence?
ethbr1 4mo ago
Hence things like the US FDA's major statement / CCN standards: https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download Providing accurate-in-effect summarized information is a difficult balance to strike. Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results.
- s1artibartfast 4mo ago
  Are government officials, like goveners or their health departments held to similar standards? I think this was the direction of their desire.
  - ethbr1 4mo ago
    Yes. That's the entire multi-stage FDA approval process, including in EUA cases.
    - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
      no, no it isnt a requirement on what a politican or government employee says or what data accompanys it. I think there is a fundamental misscommunication going on.
      - ethbr1 4mo ago
        Are you talking about the actions of governors and their state health departments? Or communications? It was unclear what your gripe was.
        s1artibartfast 4mo ago
        State public health education and advocacy campaigns. If a drug manufactuer runs a commercial, they are legally required to include risks and references to relevant information. If a state rep or PR manager does it, they can literally lie as far as I am aware.
- Henchman21 4mo ago
  > Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results Absolutely hate this framing. I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization. But to say that because I have walked another path in life that I don’t care?!? Because I have chosen a different specialization?? Deeply insulting AND untrue AND unrealistic. Our society is based on specialization at this point. If we cannot rely on each other for these basic communication tasks, then society must be dead, eh?
  - ethbr1 4mo ago
    Turn that around: you're asking for someone to make something understandable to you despite your not having the background to make an informed decision. That process, by definition, in the perfect case, includes someone summarizing/simplifying concepts. And that process is extremely difficult to do without bias, summarization being an information-loss activity, etc. So essentially, you're asking for an impossible standard of communication. Additionally, I'd point out that the basics^ of biology, immunology, pathology, and epidemiology aren't that complicated, if you're a reasonably intelligent person. Grasping the basics of mRNA transcription, viral fragment encoding, immune system functioning, and the purpose and effects of various common vaccine adjuvants is ~20 hours of internet research. Which is one of the reasons it really gets my goat when so many anti-vaccine folks appear not to have made any educational effort before crystalizing their loud opinions. ^ As distinct from the details, which require a lifetime to comprehend
  - estearum 4mo ago
    > I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization. They did explain it! Here's what it sounded like: "We have thoroughly researched these treatments and found them to be generally safe and effective, and well-worth the potential risks for people who fit profile X Y Z, but closer individualized medical consideration is warranted for people who fit profile P Q R."
estearum 4mo ago
That's why they say: "these medicines are found to be safe and effective after thorough study, and for patients who meet X Y Z criteria, they are worth taking, and for patients who meet P Q R criteria, you should consult your doctor." It's perfectly clear. Or are you arguing that people need to know the numbers but have no obligation/ability to actually figure out what they mean?
- s1artibartfast 4mo ago
  I think you two disagree on if they actually say that more than what the message should be.
- xboxnolifes 4mo ago
  You can just do both. "Here are the reports, here are the numbers simplified, and here is our declared risk analysis. Yet, whenever I try to look up anything with regards to health/medicine, I find dozens of people/orgs repeating the last bit, and the first bits are hard to come across if you dont already know where to look. Its so avoided that im not surprised some people think its intentionally hidden. Saying something is safe is a declared risk tolerance, it is not actually communicating the risk. It only works if the people you are talking to already trust your judgement.
  - estearum 4mo ago
    Okay so you're upset that people propagate the easy-to-understand information much more thoroughly than the super technical hard-to-understand information?
    - xboxnolifes 4mo ago
      Im not upset. My critique is that societal health communicators are doing a poor job at communicating risk, and instead fall back on just making the claim that something is safe and everyone should listen to them. Taking a complex topic and distilling it into simple, consumable bites that your audience can injest is what communication is. Yet, so much communication takes the easy route of "the public cant possibly understand this, well just say its safe or unsafe". If you see this as an unavoidable, then I see the breakdown of trust of these institutions to be unavoidable too, as their ability to communicate is too poor.

Sammi 4mo ago

But they are! They are saying what is generally safe and what is not. Telling people the dry statistics won't help most people. Remember half of all people are below average in IQ. You need to paint with broad strokes if you want to reach most people.

xboxnolifes 4mo ago
Claiming that something is safe or not safe is not communicating risk. It is asserting a certain risk tolerance. "We have looked at the numbers and came to the conclusion that X is safe enough to use". This does not work if the people you are communicating with do not already trust your risk judgement. If it helps, substitute health officials and Healthcare with tech CEOs and tech products. Do you trust them when they claim that their products protect your privacy without laying out the evidence?

ethbr1 4mo ago

Hence things like the US FDA's major statement / CCN standards: https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download Providing accurate-in-effect summarized information is a difficult balance to strike. Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results.

s1artibartfast 4mo ago
Are government officials, like goveners or their health departments held to similar standards? I think this was the direction of their desire.
- ethbr1 4mo ago
  Yes. That's the entire multi-stage FDA approval process, including in EUA cases.
  - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
    no, no it isnt a requirement on what a politican or government employee says or what data accompanys it. I think there is a fundamental misscommunication going on.
    - ethbr1 4mo ago
      Are you talking about the actions of governors and their state health departments? Or communications? It was unclear what your gripe was.
      - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
        State public health education and advocacy campaigns. If a drug manufactuer runs a commercial, they are legally required to include risks and references to relevant information. If a state rep or PR manager does it, they can literally lie as far as I am aware.
Henchman21 4mo ago
> Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results Absolutely hate this framing. I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization. But to say that because I have walked another path in life that I don’t care?!? Because I have chosen a different specialization?? Deeply insulting AND untrue AND unrealistic. Our society is based on specialization at this point. If we cannot rely on each other for these basic communication tasks, then society must be dead, eh?
- ethbr1 4mo ago
  Turn that around: you're asking for someone to make something understandable to you despite your not having the background to make an informed decision. That process, by definition, in the perfect case, includes someone summarizing/simplifying concepts. And that process is extremely difficult to do without bias, summarization being an information-loss activity, etc. So essentially, you're asking for an impossible standard of communication. Additionally, I'd point out that the basics^ of biology, immunology, pathology, and epidemiology aren't that complicated, if you're a reasonably intelligent person. Grasping the basics of mRNA transcription, viral fragment encoding, immune system functioning, and the purpose and effects of various common vaccine adjuvants is ~20 hours of internet research. Which is one of the reasons it really gets my goat when so many anti-vaccine folks appear not to have made any educational effort before crystalizing their loud opinions. ^ As distinct from the details, which require a lifetime to comprehend
- estearum 4mo ago
  > I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization. They did explain it! Here's what it sounded like: "We have thoroughly researched these treatments and found them to be generally safe and effective, and well-worth the potential risks for people who fit profile X Y Z, but closer individualized medical consideration is warranted for people who fit profile P Q R."

estearum 4mo ago

That's why they say: "these medicines are found to be safe and effective after thorough study, and for patients who meet X Y Z criteria, they are worth taking, and for patients who meet P Q R criteria, you should consult your doctor." It's perfectly clear. Or are you arguing that people need to know the numbers but have no obligation/ability to actually figure out what they mean?

s1artibartfast 4mo ago
I think you two disagree on if they actually say that more than what the message should be.
xboxnolifes 4mo ago
You can just do both. "Here are the reports, here are the numbers simplified, and here is our declared risk analysis. Yet, whenever I try to look up anything with regards to health/medicine, I find dozens of people/orgs repeating the last bit, and the first bits are hard to come across if you dont already know where to look. Its so avoided that im not surprised some people think its intentionally hidden. Saying something is safe is a declared risk tolerance, it is not actually communicating the risk. It only works if the people you are talking to already trust your judgement.
- estearum 4mo ago
  Okay so you're upset that people propagate the easy-to-understand information much more thoroughly than the super technical hard-to-understand information?
  - xboxnolifes 4mo ago
    Im not upset. My critique is that societal health communicators are doing a poor job at communicating risk, and instead fall back on just making the claim that something is safe and everyone should listen to them. Taking a complex topic and distilling it into simple, consumable bites that your audience can injest is what communication is. Yet, so much communication takes the easy route of "the public cant possibly understand this, well just say its safe or unsafe". If you see this as an unavoidable, then I see the breakdown of trust of these institutions to be unavoidable too, as their ability to communicate is too poor.