“Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out • Hacker News Board

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#31

Post by yokaze » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

carlivar wrote: post #9

reese_john wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option? The technocratic apparatus might have been deployed toward a strategy of creative mitigation — say, mass manufacturing of N95 masks, test kits mailed to every American, testing at a large-enough scale to isolate only the actually infected instead of everyone. Instead, our leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions on i…

America should have done the South Korea playbook. Technology based, aggressive testing and contact tracing via an intense public-private partnership.

That was only theoretically possible. After the avian flu outbreak, South Korea had implemented and trained the system you have observed. Just the year before they did an exercise on a hypothetical coronavirus outbreak. So, the US could not catch up years of preparation in matter of weeks.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#32

Post by dTal » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

the_dune_13 wrote: post #18

reese_john wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option? The technocratic apparatus might have been deployed toward a strategy of creative mitigation — say, mass manufacturing of N95 masks, test kits mailed to every American, testing at a large-enough scale to isolate only the actually infected instead of everyone. Instead, our leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions on i…

"mass manufacturing of N95 masks" How? The shortage in March was one of the reasons why they did not recommend masks. Besides, the point made was tailored toward the negative attitude towards science in emarging crisis scenario - "The “science” [..] rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses" Did we have any superior alternatives?

Any mask recommendation would have been an improvement, while production ramped up. The knowing bait-and-switch of "masks don't work" for the cynical reason of preserving supplies destroyed many people's trust in the integrity of the apparatus.

And now, we're a year in and still we don't have actual N95 filtering masks everywhere. Most people are still wearing cloth.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#33

Post by Exmoor » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 8:51 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #32

the_dune_13 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"mass manufacturing of N95 masks" How? The shortage in March was one of the reasons why they did not recommend masks. Besides, the point made was tailored toward the negative attitude towards science in emarging crisis scenario - "The “science” [..] rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses" Did we have any superior alternatives?

Any mask recommendation would have been an improvement, while production ramped up. The knowing bait-and-switch of "masks don't work" for the cynical reason of preserving supplies destroyed many people's trust in the integrity of the apparatus. And now, we're a year in and still we don't have actual N95 filtering masks everywhere. Most people are still wearing cloth.

And I have yet to see anyone in the US government recommend an actual filtering mask, which somewhat boggles my mind. Real FDA-approved KN95 masks have been available fairly cheaply for 6+ months, although ensuring you're not getting counterfeits can be an issue. I switched several months ago and couldn't believe how much better they were. It was obvious that air was actually going through the mask rather than around the sides and I had fewer issues with my glasses fogging and humidity buildup. Add to that the fact that it's actually filtering out 95% of any harmful particles and it's a no-brainer.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#34

Post by mannykannot » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #22

mannykannot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking particles does not look like a solution unless you know what is causing a given disease. Medieval practitioners might have had some sort of intuition that this might be effective, but it was at most one idea among many mostly false ones, it dd not have any empirical support, and it did not translate into effective prophylaxis. Like I said, you are proposing alternative science-based policies, which does not…

Again, this goes back to a tried and true principle, “err on the side of caution.” It’s true that masks don’t look like a solution unless you know that it’s a disease spread by the air. That is why you in the beginning adopt all manner of protections: handwashing, distancing, cleaning surfaces, wearing masks. None of this has to do with “alternative science,” whatever that refers to.

It remains a fact that everything you have proposed is also based on science, and so stands as an alternative way to "follow the science", not a repudiation of doing so. As such, it makes no refutation of the_dune_13's point.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#35

Post by ironmagma » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #34

ironmagma wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this goes back to a tried and true principle, “err on the side of caution.” It’s true that masks don’t look like a solution unless you know that it’s a disease spread by the air. That is why you in the beginning adopt all manner of protections: handwashing, distancing, cleaning surfaces, wearing masks. None of this has to do with “alternative science,” whatever that refers to.

It remains a fact that everything you have proposed is also based on science, and so stands as an alternative way to "follow the science", not a repudiation of doing so. As such, it makes no refutation of the_dune_13's point.

I’m refuting the notion that “follow the science” is sufficient strategy for a pandemic or for anything. It’s in the category “necessary but not sufficient.” We also have to actually understand the science.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#36

Post by bob_roberts » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

barney54 wrote: post #29

bob_roberts wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our leaders In the United States at least, that's a bit of a cop out. Lockdowns were applied at the local level and were originally meant to buy time and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. The Federal government could have then stepped in with mass manufacturing of masks and wide-scale testing. But Trump was reluctant to use the Defense Production Act, and Jared Kushner was put in charge of coordinating PPE…

Trump did use the Defense Production Act for ventilators. But ventilators didn’t turn out to be effective.

True - but arguably Trump was too slow to invoke it and it wasn't broad enough. And states had to bid against each other to get PPE, only to have the Feds then seize confiscate some of them.

My main point was we should have had a coordinated response. Framing it as "leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions" is misleading. Lockdowns were necessary at the local level because there wasn't a coherent strategy at the national level. (Again, speaking only of the U.S.)

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#37

Post by BoiledCabbage » Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

jimmygrapes wrote: post #26

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #21

> In January 2020, when the first cases of what would later be dubbed Covid-19 were discovered on American soil, state and city governments were charged with managing the crisis before it was too late. But at precisely the time for acting, when the virus was here but had not yet spread widely, nearly every political institution in America that bore responsibility — including various bureaus of public health — claimed…

The media bubble has got to you as well my friend. You are othering huge swaths of society based on inaccurate and incomplete information, and I'd venture that even when presented with additional information that contradicts your assumptions, your opinion wouldn't change.

Sure, I'm open to that - so back it up, please list 3 equivalent widely held political views as far out there and unsupported as Birtherism, QAnon and election denial.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#38

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #35

mannykannot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It remains a fact that everything you have proposed is also based on science, and so stands as an alternative way to "follow the science", not a repudiation of doing so. As such, it makes no refutation of the_dune_13's point.

I’m refuting the notion that “follow the science” is sufficient strategy for a pandemic or for anything. It’s in the category “necessary but not sufficient.” We also have to actually understand the science.

Fair enough, but the authors of this article vent most of their ire on policies of isolation and containment, which are scientifically respectable, demonstrably effective when employed effectively, and in conformance with your principle of caution.

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#39

Post by chrismcb » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 3:50 AM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #19

mannykannot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not alternatives to basing policies on scientific knowledge, they are either alternatives - chosen with the benefit of hindsight - to some of the specific policies followed for a time, or some additional science-informed actions that could be taken. Human history has plenty of experience of what happens in epidemics when the response is not informed by science, and we do not need any more of that. Furthermo…

We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask coul…

At the beginning of the pandemic, many scientists were worried that a mask works make things worse... As people would touch the mask and readjust it constantly. The question is, what evidence do we have that masks work for the average person?

Re: “Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

#40

Post by masonic » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 5:47 AM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #19

mannykannot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not alternatives to basing policies on scientific knowledge, they are either alternatives - chosen with the benefit of hindsight - to some of the specific policies followed for a time, or some additional science-informed actions that could be taken. Human history has plenty of experience of what happens in epidemics when the response is not informed by science, and we do not need any more of that. Furthermo…

We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask coul…

  basic physics to be more precise

Look at the actual physics of the size of the virus particle (even with the lipid envelope) vs the width of the weave in conventional masks. It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net.

The myth of mask = protection completely ignores that the eyes are a bigger attack surface than the nostrils or closed mouth. Eye coverage is at least as important as masks, yet it was always ignored by mainstream US media.