241–250 of 837 posts
From CDC's Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (2018): 1. Be First 2. Be Right. 3. Be Credible. 4. Express Empathy. 5. Promote Action. 6. Show Respect. https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/manual/index.asp
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…
(speaking generally here at those I've seen share the same rage, not accusing you directly) I just cannot wrap my head around being so upset that a public official lied you're willing to sever friendships, familial ties, and sacrifice your career because you refuse to follow sane and frankly manageable guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It's not even that the messaging is currently or has been conflicting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With how governments have behaved I absolutely understand why people would distrust them and to be honest, I have absolutely zero trust in government right now too. They put politics and driving wedges between people to further entrench their positions (a bunch of provinces and our feds all called snap elections during Covid) over honesty and people. Even now instead of trying to assuage the fears of the vaccine hesi…
Ironically, those PHDs you trust are the most hesitant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And my post is about the reality of our politics today. People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. Why? Because certain leaders in certain political thoughts are pushing anti-mask and pro-ivermectin messages. Its that simple. There's no need to mince words. People trust their leaders. If it helps, its the same reason why some liberals are all "Screw the rich", because they trust Bernie Sanders. No one likes __Congre…
> People distrust masks but trust ivermectin. source? It may also be useful to disambiguate anti-vaxers from anti-vax-mandate-ers. I think they have fundamentally different arguments. >but everyone likes their particular Senator/House rep. everyone? > That's how its supposed to work: I doubt that the founders intended to build a system only 12% of people supported but maybe...
The founders absolutely intended for Congress to be the "we like our guy but dislike every other guy" situation. 100%. In fact, that's 100% evident in the design of the electoral college.
We were _supposed_ to hate other guys so much that Congress would end up choosing the President each time through debate. What was _NOT_ intended was for political parties to creep up and unify the voices of people across state lines (ie: giving actual power to the Electoral College. Woops).
The founders got a lot of things wrong about how people would act. But they got the part right about Congress. What we see today is exactly what the founders intended. (This doesn't mean that the founders are necessarily correct about this issue, but anyone who has studied the Federalist papers / other early writings knows this to be how Congress was designed).
Yeah, people glorify the founders and all that. But they were just people, and they made mistakes. (Have you met anyone yet who believes that the founders were divinely inspired by God? Because I have. There's lots of opinions about how this country was founded) Regardless, its important to understand their intents and the design of this country as part of our debates.
Congress, for better or for worse, is acting just as intended. The reason why Congress can't do anything right now is because we have deep disagreements across this country about what we should do.
------------
> everyone?
Every House/Senator has over 50% of support within their district, by definition. Every. Period. If not, their opponent gets elected next time.
There's some legitimate questions about redistricting and such (Gerrymandering wasn't foreseen by the founders). But Senators are immune to Gerrymandering by nature of how they work. But the reason why we have so many Senators for some areas is because of compromises before the Civil War about slave states vs non-slave states (whenever a "slave state" was founded, a non-slave state would split into two states to satisfy the status quo). There's all sorts of messes that we've inherited from short-sighted decisions 200 years ago (after the founders, but before the civil war).
In any case: the specific complain that I asserted earlier: that we like "our guy" but dislike others, is exactly how the system was designed to work. Only when large groups of people agree on a matter should a new law be written.
> source? It may also be useful to disambiguate anti-vaxers from anti-vax-mandate-ers. I think they have fundamentally different arguments.
I dunno? My parents? My sister's father in law? My coworkers? The lady on the Airplane I talked to? Just talk to people. Its pretty common. Look for watchers of Fox News or One American News networks, and the like. Surely you have someone in your social circle?
IVM is a miracle drug being used by people overseas that CDC isn't allowing. Don't-cha-know? Its the same line being used everywhere, because these people are watching / listening the same arguments from leaders they trust.
I think the smarter leaders are trying to morph the discussion towards drugs that do work (ie: Monoclonal Antibodies), and I'm willing to have a debate on that issue. (Monoclonal antibodies do work, but cost $2000+ per dose. Compared to a $20 vaccine or a $1 mask, its a steep price to pay).
IVM is so stupid I'm not going to debate it seriously.
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…
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…
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
I think the single study that supported cloth face coverings of no particular standard of performance was a mechanistic study that depends on the belief that respiratory illness spread is a direct function of the distance water droplets of an arbitrary threshold size travel from a simulated sneeze. Which, of course, is so obviously true it needs no supporting evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really think this will go down as The Big Mistake that lost the public's trust in the US and made compliance for every subsequent measure difficult to sell, and opened the door to nutters.
This is a pretty privileged viewpoint imo. This one small thing lost the public's trust? Not the fact that cops used to pull me over for no reason because I lived in a poor neighborhood? Not the fact that my family member's lives were ruined because of tiny drug-related infractions? Not the fact that we went on a pointless 20+ year war for no reason (just the one within my lifetime)? Really. Wearing a mask is the bre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This clip reminds me of Colbert because different people map their mental model onto her communication to parse one thing or the opposite thing.
It doesn't to me. What she said it is: - I won't take it if trump alone tells me to take it - I will be first to take it if experts give their thumbs up Some people take the whole thing at face value, some take only the first part and ignore the rest. In 70s Ford used political pressure to speed up swine flu vaccine development and that had negative consequences.
That is mostly a nonsense statement, public health professionals and the state recommend the same things. Not all health professionals but it isn't like a vaccine would get rolled out without any health professionals recommending it.
> In 70s Ford used political pressure to speed up swine flu vaccine development and that had negative consequences.
And did public health professionals recommend against taking it then? Or was it just Ford who recommended it against every the wish of every health expert?
I don't see how her statement can be taken as anything but "Republicans are also pro vaccine now, so we need to sow divisiveness in another way!". If she truly cared about peoples health she would have taken the opportunity to unite the people and the politicians over the vaccination issue here.
Edit: before you downvote this, read it? I'm not an anti-vax nutcase. They didn't trust the public with their actual thinking at any point during Covid. The guidance was initially "don't wear a mask, it will make it worse because you'll infect yourself with your hand" to "we'll just lock down for 3 weeks and then back to normal" to "we have to flatten the curve to avoid overwhelming hospitals" to the current policy o…
Surgical masks (and other cloth masks) make a small but significant difference in transmission. At the beginning of the pandemic, we didn't understand whether that difference was lost in the increased need to interact with one's face while wearing a mask (and we now know that SARS-CoV-2 becomes inactivated quite quickly on surfaces, like our hands). N95s and higher rated masks/filters have always been very good for v…
I don't buy this at all. It's viable to vaccinate the general population but it's not viable have them fitted for masks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people are not stupid, if provided with all available information as well as clear statements regarding the reliability of that information and just a clear message saying "hey this is new and we have no idea, we are making our best guess" people will make decent choices Citation needed
Seriously, the run on toilet paper was a strong counter-argument.
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…
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…
Given that the vaccine doesn't work to stop transmissions, I'd reckon this was just another way for the "experts" to further loose trust with the public.