Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 837 posts

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#801

Post by notahacker »

timr wrote: post #788
notahacker wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And science, as a process, depends on the ability of unpopular opinions to exist. Because sometimes, they're right. Science, as a process, does not depend on the ability of unpopular (or in this case, very popular) opinions to be broadcast to a sufficiently large number of laypeople on a particular channel. HCQ research was carried out despite rather than because Bob from Texas or Luis from Brazil read some drivel…

> Science, as a process, does not depend on the ability of unpopular (or in this case, very popular) opinions to be broadcast to a sufficiently large number of laypeople on a particular channel. It would be amusing how confident you are in your pronouncements of who deserves to have speech "for science", if it weren't so scary. Speaking as a scientist, I want to hear all of it, and I don't need you to help out. The o…

> The only thing in the realm of speech that can truly hurt me is the risk of misled by moral busybodies who think they know what is true and virtuous

A bit weird how you started off with a tirade about the real world consequences of publishing a fake paper (I think we actually agree that was bad) as well as an insistence that in engaging in ridicule and fact checking was "miscommunication" breeding public mistrust then. Stop pronouncing speech had harmful consequences, you moral busybody! And how dare the Lancet take that paper down!

I'm sorry you're scared about my confidence in the future of scientific research not depending on Invermectin partisans (or anyone else) being able to publish stuff on Facebook.com without content warnings. Personally, I'd see much more reason to be scared if I wasn't confident in my pronouncement that scientific research will go on regardless of how Facebook chooses to filter its newsfeed.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#802

Post by nielsbot »

croutonwagon wrote: post #736
nielsbot wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that COVID-19 does not impact the population directly in large numbers?

Yes basically. Major complication rates for those under 18 are very low, especially when compared to other diseases in these vaccine schedules (in my example I used measles which was closer to 30%) [1][1.1][1.2] . By far most of the major complications as a result of COVID are in populations over 45 OR with those with pre existing conditions. This qualifications are almost nonexistent in the under 18 population. At b…

But what about the 499 deaths? Wouldn't those have been prevented?

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#803

Post by johnchristopher »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #254
valeness wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

>"because you refuse to follow sane and frankly manageable guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19." As a point of order we can't treat "manageable guidelines" as a monolith as there have been a ton of "guidelines" and rules imposed over the last three years that were dubious, farcical, or overly intrusive. Like supermarkets cordoning off the greeting card aisle because social gatherings like parties were prohib…

I often hear criticisms like this (and it's perfectly sound criticisms).

My counter-argument is that, at the time, given our resources and our understanding we had to take wide scale measures and a lot of compromises were made and negotiations happened between people, institutions, governments, etc. so that we wouldn't just shut down everything. I believe most of the time these oddities and weirdness are consequences of those compromises and it's still the case.

Sometimes it's easy to frame things like that and sometimes it's not (especially when the measures is only put in place for 3 days or a week. Eg when they asked people to sit alone next to train windows, rather than all next to each other or when they cordoned off books in supermarkets so bookstores that just reopened could have clients). I don't know how far off the mark I am.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#804

Post by SquishyPanda23 »

spookthesunset wrote: post #456
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The flip side that wasn't discussed This has been discussed ad nauseam. Nature isn't a foreign policy magazine, so it's not really the greatest place for advising how the US should respond to a disinformation campaign. But communicating about healthcare policy seems to be reasonably in its area of expertise. > The flip side that wasn't discussed is the belittling and censoring of voices that were skeptical of the n…

What is disinformation? Who gets to decide?

The people running the disinformation campaign usually decide.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#805

Post by Natsu »

clairity wrote: post #790
Natsu wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your chance of death from covid is likely (much) less than 0.2% EDIT: I had to address this, too, but even if I assume that figure we get 15.6M dead people once the world is infected. I agree that I have a low personal risk, it's not making grandma die of not breathing--something we know painfully well because of how grandpa died grasping for every breath--that I'd like to avoid. Yeah, there's a DNR order, but I do…

my apologies for being overly critical of you particularly, because that’s not the strict intent, as there is a larger audience to consider. it’s hard to thread the needle between the personal and the general on an open forum like this. i do stand by what i said in general however. masks are an insignificant mitigation in most situations (but not for grandma). we can reduce deaths at the margin (like vaccinating the…

Apology accepted. And on the point of sharing information, I can agree with you. I do want to see more of that because I doubt that any of us knows everything about this. Please continue to share whatever information you find and how you came to know it.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#806

Post by kcplate »

ziml77 wrote: post #751
kcplate wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Closing borders is racist. Two weeks to flatten the curve. Don’t mask. Mask. Stay Inside. Trump didn’t close the borders fast enough! Double mask. Protest crowds are not superspreaders. Trump Rallies are superspreaders. School is dangerous, distance learning is good. Go outside, inside is bad. Dems-don’t trust Trump Vaccines. Biden/Pelosi - we can’t mandate vaccination. Dems-you must trust our vaccines, they are effe…

Closing specific borders because you don't like the people who come through that border is racist. Closing them all probably wouldn't have done enough anyway since it would have to be combined with mandatory and strictly enforced total lockdown to also prevent the spread internally. We were able to affect the curve. Maybe it would have been flat or even inverted if people actually stayed home for 2 weeks. They said n…

Yes, you have appropriately conveyed all of the political talking points that attempt to tie logic to the illogic behind some of those flippy floppy positions. The changes are only logical when viewed from a political lens. The party behind all that political exploitation of the pandemic I listed never measures it’s success by the outcomes of their policies, only by the virtues behind their intent (Just as you have done here). Perhaps that is how you think to measure success. Me? I measure success by public trust and successful results. The US government and its experts are sorely lacking in both of those areas.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#807

Post by r3trohack3r »

jimkleiber wrote: post #644
r3trohack3r wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now we've got a huge swath of US citizens that will never take the vaccine I suspect it's more than just "the vaccine" (assuming "the" refers to the covid vaccines); it's an overall regression in the trust of health officials that will take decades to rebuild. We had a pretty well built system of trust for health officials. Everything from a standard set of vaccines being a requirement at schools to CDC guidance be…

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 dishonest during COVID doesn't fit the common definition of "rhetoric."

Official health channels were playing a trolley game and didn't trust the public to be "in on the game." Without knowing the game, you don't know which set of tracks you are standing on. If you know a trolley is coming, and the official channels have demonstrated they are being dishonest, you should not trust them when they tell you "switch to this track, we promise we aren't sending any trolleys down it." At best, you are the lucky group being put on the life boats. At worse, you are the smaller of two statistics.

Some of the trolley games I saw early on, where I personally lost trust in these channels:

---

What they said: this isn't a pandemic.

The game: this is a pandemic, but we don't want to cause a rush on supplies.

If you weren't buying supplies in preparation for the imminent lockdown, you were standing on the wrong set of tracks and the official health channels lied to you.

---

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

The game: we need to make sure hospitals have masks

Masks worked to reduce the spread of COVID under specific circumstances. You should have been wearing one during the early days of the hockystick. If you didn't go out and buy a few early on, you were standing on the wrong set of tracks and the official health channels lied to you.

---

Trust is earned, not given. You don't earn my trust by sending trolleys barreling down the tracks at my friends and family.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#808

Post by croutonwagon »

nielsbot wrote: post #802
croutonwagon wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes basically. Major complication rates for those under 18 are very low, especially when compared to other diseases in these vaccine schedules (in my example I used measles which was closer to 30%) [1][1.1][1.2] . By far most of the major complications as a result of COVID are in populations over 45 OR with those with pre existing conditions. This qualifications are almost nonexistent in the under 18 population. At b…

But what about the 499 deaths? Wouldn't those have been prevented?

That’s a pretty silly assumption. Those numbers are low enough it could just as easily be exigent reasons (autoimmune diseases, compromised immune systems). 2x more kids die from congenital anomalies. About the same number for heart heart defects per year. [1]

Those numbers can easily be intermixed. Not to mention kids with severe asthma or other respiratory diseases.

There’s no data that would say vaccinations would have done anything for those 499 people.

Not to mention the way many did a lot of these stats is if someone had covid and died from any cause, they were often included in the numbers.

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#809

Post by systemvoltage »

whimsicalism wrote: post #798
systemvoltage wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really and you’re just proving the point. Killing people is an acceptable trade off - you do it every day. Otherwise we’d stop driving, flying or take any risks. You’re appealing to the emotion and doubling down on it.

> Killing people is an acceptable trade off - you do it every day. Otherwise we’d stop driving, flying or take any risks. You’re appealing to the emotion and doubling down on it. Sure, if you only consider first-order effects from car accidents. A world without easy transportation is a less well off one and one that likely has more people dying/living shorter lives than our present one. Saying that someone dying is b…

Sure, if you only consider first-order effects then 3 million people saved out of 1.4 billion in China is logical. But, shutting down economy, impacting birthrates, inflation, rioting, suicides, taking away precious years of learning from kids, disruption of careers, dating life, college education, loss of sole sources of income, desperation and depression, etc that has been led by authoritarian governments is not worthy of the trade off if we consider 2nd order effects as you suggest. Not to mention, the biggest one is loss of civil liberties that is the engine of growth.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#810

Post by jimkleiber »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #807
jimkleiber wrote: post #644

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...

Post reply on HN