Live data from Hacker News

Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

nature.com

541–550 of 551 posts

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what frustrates me is not that we would doubt the trustworthiness of these institutions, I think it's a pretty common ebb and flow of trust, but how so many people seem to try to convince so many other people to distrust these institutions. The "they're lying to you, they're gonna take everything from you" rhetoric which doesn't necessarily create the doubt or fear but seems to amplify it, driving society fur…

"they're lying to you ... rhetoric" I think it depends on the definition of rhetoric you are using, and how you've framed the argument. Not everyone who said "they're lying to you" also said "they're going to take everything from you" I think the point of this article is that official health channels _were_ being dishonest - through their use of rhetoric, lying by omission, etc. Saying official health channels were d…

> I think it depends on the definition of rhetoric you are using, and how you've framed the argument. Not everyone who said "they're lying to you" also said "they're going to take everything from you"

> I think the point of this article is that official health channels _were_ being dishonest - through their use of rhetoric, lying by omission, etc.

What I meant by "they're lying to you and going to take everything from you" rhetoric was more about the litany of TV commercials and certain TV hosts that seem to pepper their sentences with very emotionally loaded words that imply evil intent or almost a malicious indifference to not just actions by the CDC but by so many institutions in society. I think I just feel so frustrated and overwhelmed by a constant hum I hear of "the world is out to get you."

That being said, I strongly agree with you that many parts of the US Federal Government, including parts of the CDC, communicated in a way that would lead people to distrust them, either through lies of omission, flat out lies, false certainty, or conflicted messaging across the people and organizations. I agree with the article in that, especially about the masks, many people in the government did not openly express the uncertainty of the situation and trust in the citizens to not only to be kind to each other but to have the ability to adapt and maintain solidarity throughout. I much more appreciated the way that, from what I remember, the New Zealand Prime Minister asked citizens for their help, instead of just telling them what to do or not do (I could be wrong on that, can't find the video at the moment).

---

I appreciate your point about the trolley games. In looking back, maybe one of the reasons I didn't lose a lot of trust in the CDC was because I had other sources around the world, namely a friend in Hong Kong, who was strongly warning me about it and giving me instructions on how to stay safe, from masking, to disrobing in the garage, to washing the grocery bags, etc. I recognize not everyone was as lucky and some people have suffered grave consequences as a result.

Regarding those examples, I think I remember the CDC communicating those differently. Perhaps I'm misremembering, I don't think I ever got the impression they never called it a pandemic. Maybe in Jan and Feb, but I think once the WHO declared it a pandemic and around the time the NBA and NCAA basketball closed, I'm pretty sure the CDC was also calling it a pandemic.

I just found this article[1] from Feb 26, 2020, entitled "Covid-19: Why won't the WHO officially declare a coronavirus pandemic?", in which it says:

> The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the covid-19 virus already meets two of its three criteria for a pandemic: it spreads between people, and it kills.

> The third is that it has to spread worldwide. The virus is now in 38 countries – and counting – on nearly all continents, and those are just the ones we know about. How much more worldwide does it need to be?

It makes me wonder whether the CDC itself even has the authority to declare a pandemic, since it doesn't operate worldwide.

I also found an article[2] talking about how a meme was going around Facebook saying the CDC removed the word "pandemic" from its site, which I don't remember happening and which the article seems to strongly dispute with many links:

> We rate this claim as FALSE. The meme is wrong. The COVID-19 outbreak, though often described that way, is still a pandemic and has been since March 11.

Regarding the wearing of masks, yes, I mostly agree that even if these orgs didn't outright say "you don't need masks" (as the Surgeon General did in a tweet)[3], they still advised them only for people who were working in hospitals, taking care of people who were sick, or who were experiencing symptoms themselves. At least up until April 3, 2020, when the CDC recommended all people wear masks in public[4] (although Trump said he would not).

> What they said: the public doesn't need masks for this pandemic

> The game: we need to make sure hospitals have masks

So yes, I think from the end of February (maybe earlier) until beginning of April, the CDC didn't recommend wearing masks for the general public and those who were in the hard hit areas at those times could have been really hurt and/or killed as a result and I wish they had communicated more clearly and openly about this. I don't necessarily agree the game was explicitly "we know the masks work for the public and yet we are worried people will hoard them so we will lie to them and tell them only hospital workers need them." I think it was a concern they would run out of PPE for hospital workers and I also think they were unsure how well masks would help the general public, mostly because they didn't seem to know covid-19 transmitted as asymptomatically as it has.

---

I guess I just often see trust as a choice. Do I believe that they knew with strong certainty that a mask would help me and chose to lie to me because they didn't trust that I would not hoard them? Do I believe that they were quite scared about hospitals not having PPE, confident that the virus only spread through symptomatic infection, and unsure if masks would actually help people without symptoms?

At the end of the day, I'll almost never certainly know. I guess I just choose to believe the latter because it helps me rebuild trust in them and feel a little safer going forward.

[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2235342-covid-19-why-wo...

[2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/18/fac...

[3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200303020926/https://twitter.c...

[4]: https://www.fastcompany.com/90612519/seriously-people-stop-b...

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#542

The decision to lie to the public about masks fearing an N95 shortage for healthcare workers has been the biggest disaster in many minds. Ideally the government would have owned up and said: ‘wups we were supposed to be stockpiling these for the last 10 years when this topic came up in a disaster planning scenario (it did), but we didn’t do that and now there is no way we will have enough for many years because indus…

Maybe honesty would have been better, but at the beginning when nobody knew how bad the pandemic was going to be, I'm sure almost everybody would have stockpiled as many of the "better" masks as they could get their hands on.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#543
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the biggest example of this was the poor mask guidance early on in the pandemic that was subsequently reversed. Zeynep Tufekci had a very good piece in the NYT on this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-... The real fear was that there would be a run on masks by the public, making them unavailable for hospital use. Also, at the time, there wasn't clear evidence of the effective…

This matches a lot of my own experience in trying to convince people to take reasonable precautions and get vaccinated. And I was one of the first in line for my age group in my state. You have to do things to build trust first, and you have to be willing to admit that some of the measures taken are farcical and have no basis in science. People will listen to a reasonable, nuanced discussion. They won't listen to som…

> People will listen to a reasonable, nuanced discussion.

Is this actually true in the today's world of social media and 24x7 news cycle? I honestly can't think of anywhere (of any popularity) that still engages in nuanced discussion. Probably because people don't tune in.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#544
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just US, I would say there's a large number of very well educated people even in well off countries who have a large amount of hesitation toward this mainly due to information handling and lack of transparency. (Yes there is a very vocal anti-vax nut job crowd, but frankly that will always be there, and is always different to those who object to policy decisions on moral grounds of their failings and the deaths t…

Just look at data of percentage of people vaccinated in the western world where supply is actually available for anyone to take the vaccine right now. The US is last. There is something specific to the US here.

And look at the geographical distributions of low vaccine rates. Is very low in very wealthy parts of the UK where house prices are astronomical vs high dentisty pupation centers.

Why should most of London be at a higher vaccination rates than Oxford or Cambridge city centres? There is clear hesitancy here of some small groups that live near universities and make up <5% of the population. (Source ONS UK stats)

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#545
post #416

Disappointed to see so much bald-faced lying in the comments. I really don’t understand why the most egregious liars aren’t given the boot.

Because HN wants to treat its users as adults who can judge for themselves whether they should or shouldn’t believe something they are reading? Why do you want to censor and stifle discussions that could possibly convert the person telling the lie because of some misunderstanding to change their views and accept a different perspective?

Note my use of the word “egregious.” Thank you.

The egregious liars have no desire to change their views. They desire to misinform and distract you, to waste your energies, to obfuscate truthful and valuable discussion. They are poison to informed discussion.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such pandemics don't start every other year. Last great one was 100 years ago. So i wouldn't worry at all for the "winners", there's plenty of time for generations to refresh. Worry about government's inability to learn and improve based on past mistakes, also complacency. It's not hard to imagine 100 years from now, popular presidential guy spearheading the next great pandemic, calming the subjects down with the gre…

...are you not counting HIV as a recent major pandemic? SARS? MERS? It is also worth remembering that for decades we have been carefully monitoring the spread of infectious diseases to prevent major pandemics from forming. There was no political controversy surrounding those efforts prior to COVID19, not in the US or anywhere else.

Major - yes. "Great" - far from it. COVID is basically unstoppable despite the draconian measures lots of countries took. Post SMS if you're going out, yet your hospitals remain overloaded - HIV, SARS, MERS don't even come close to that.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#547

The article is discussing the media and government being intentionally vague or even misinformative because they don't trust the public, but it backfires and causes more distrust. The flip side that wasn't discussed is the belittling and censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives, which engendered even more distrust. Their strategy of information control backfired, and they doubled down. Now we've got…

Never taking the vaccine and I suggest everyone else not to either. It has not gone through any of the rigorous scientific studies that any other required vaccine in modern US history had to go through. And its about time people stopped voting and started taking real action against the blatant disregard for the Constitution and the American people that this Government has. We are the ones should be holding our government accountable, and we have failed because we are too afraid of Violence. And lets be clear when a person breaks a law the police officer uses adequate force to arrest him and if he keeps resisting then it can sometimes be violent force. Its legal and righteous. People wonder why the Jewish people didn't stand and fight against Hitler when they had the chance? They were frogs in boiling water unable to know they were dead before it was too late, and right now the melting pot of our country is getting mighty warm.

Our ancestors fought and died for the rights we have given up because our refusal to go into the streets and fight. Enough talk, go out there and take back what is yours. If you tolerate injustice by refusing to take action you are the same as the one who would be applying that injustice. The only way for us to take back our rights is for everyone to fight, you want to talk about duty with vaccine? You have a duty for your countryman to stand with him to defend the rights you deserve, need, and cherish. Whether you care or not is irrelevant, because you not fighting damns everybody else who does since this War requires every human who calls themselves an American. Get your ass in the streets right now and fight. Not a figure of speech, march down your city and tear down anything and everything that infringes on your rights. And for the people who I know are thinking about the repercussions or social stigma, then fuck you. Our rights are worth every single ounce of pain and suffering a human could be inflicted with. Without Rights our Life is meaningless.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#548
post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why aren't the vax campaigns leading with Trump's action – and his repeated verbal endorsement of choosing to get vaxed – to overcome resistance in his followers? If you go to trump community sites you'll find out that: 1. They think he's an idiot for taking the vax 2. They think he was threatened to taking it 3. He didn't really take it

Interesting. But if they're that persistently delusional, even when Trump's actions & words are contrary to their beliefs, are their actions "entirely due" to Trump? The phenomena you describe suggest it's bigger & deeper than any devotion given him. (Is it even fair to call them "Trump community sites" at that point?)

It's at least internally consistent. Many republican wealthy christians seemingly ignore the whole "camel through the head of a needle" bit.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#549
post #74
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the general public are not the one that decide who get a Phd or MD the expert are the one doing it. It make sense that the expert don't trust the general public with health decision. If you are not convinced just head over to https://www.youtube.com/c/ChubbyemuGames/videos

Maybe the general public should spend more time electing MDs and PhDs to run the government then? Instead we get bullshitters and grifters who defer to life-long bureaucrats with an MD of a PhD who suck-up to the right people to get the job, regardless of their actual competence. People tend to mistrust government "experts" because the feeling is that if they were better at their jobs, they'd obviously be in the priv…

why do we need Phd and MD "inside" the government ? Instead the government can just ask normal PHd and MD working for the private sector or for university for their opinion.

I 100% understand why people dont trust an MD which is affiliated with a specific Political Party. If you want expert to be neutral (no political) they can't be part of the government.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine after the Chernobyl disaster somebody insisting that the reactor didn’t melt down, but in fact there was a giant earthquake that opened a fissure in the ground and shot a bunch of radioactive rocks all over the town, and that that then triggered a volcano which shot radioactive dust all over Europe. At some point: the reactor in the nuclear power plant next to Pripyat is the source and alternative explanation…

There is possibly a form of survivorship bias here - it is likely that the WIV became the world leader in coronavirus research because it met the criteria for a BSL4 lab and is within a one to two day driving distance of places where previous coronavirus outbreaks started. In some ways it is unsurprising that it would be near the epicenter of an outbreak. I am not stating that it did not escape from the lab, just tha…

For anyone who comes to look at these conversations at a later date, the most recent information about work by Peter Daszak has shifted my opinion. I find it to be significantly more likely that it was a lab leak following the new evidence.
Post reply on HN