*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (7 Viewers)

[rockaction]

I was first in line when my vaccination window opened up, and I've kept up to date (I think) on vaccination.

I just have enough pride that I don't like being lied to.

I will say that it worries me when people sweep dis- or misinformation under the rug. There's no reason we shouldn't be given the correct information to make our decisions based upon available and truthful facts. I'm not going to re-litigate this, and I personally don't think people here are arguing for a "father knows best" mentality, but "nudging" or "shaping" public attitudes about large health initiatives by subtly manipulating information dissemination is how institutions begin to lose trust with an already weird, skeptical public that isn't exactly practicing Occam's razor all the time these days. It's a miracle if we can get basic facts to be believed and obvious solutions assented to by the average citizen. There's just no need to exacerbate diminishing public trust in organizations and institutions.

Tell the truth. Not that most people aren't doing their level best, but there is a distinct "nudge" element that still runs through our large governmental organizations, an element that began around 2008 when Cass Sunstein, author of the book by that name, began to work within the executive branch as—get this—Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I hated that at the time and we saw the "nudge" philosophy, or the philosophy of shaped information, come home to roost no more than thirteen years later. People hate being manipulated.

That's all.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There were plenty of clear failures in communication, whether intentional or not, and they only have themselves to blame for the lack in trust going forward.

Society is more and more distrustful of almost every institution - science, politics, religion, education, law enforcement, journalism/news reporting, you name it.

Have all institutions simultaneously become untrustworthy, or were they never worth our trust in the first place? Or has something changed about our expectations? What about our access to information?

Multiple factors are clearly in play, imo.

That is an issue I have with it all. Institution x became untrustworthy...so I am going to put all my trust in these other non-tested institutions x, y, and z eventhough they have always been untrustworthy and untested.

You guys literally never get mad at the people who destroyed the institutions you love so much. You just get mad at the people who notice.

 

[sho nuff]

There were plenty of clear failures in communication, whether intentional or not, and they only have themselves to blame for the lack in trust going forward.

Society is more and more distrustful of almost every institution - science, politics, religion, education, law enforcement, journalism/news reporting, you name it.

Have all institutions simultaneously become untrustworthy, or were they never worth our trust in the first place? Or has something changed about our expectations? What about our access to information?

Multiple factors are clearly in play, imo.

That is an issue I have with it all. Institution x became untrustworthy...so I am going to put all my trust in these other non-tested institutions x, y, and z eventhough they have always been untrustworthy and untested.

You guys literally never get mad at the people who destroyed the institutions you love so much. You just get mad at the people who notice.

I disagree with this assertion completely.

 

[jamny]

There were plenty of clear failures in communication, whether intentional or not, and they only have themselves to blame for the lack in trust going forward.

Society is more and more distrustful of almost every institution - science, politics, religion, education, law enforcement, journalism/news reporting, you name it.

Have all institutions simultaneously become untrustworthy, or were they never worth our trust in the first place? Or has something changed about our expectations? What about our access to information?

Multiple factors are clearly in play, imo.

That is an issue I have with it all. Institution x became untrustworthy...so I am going to put all my trust in these other non-tested institutions x, y, and z eventhough they have always been untrustworthy and untested.

You guys literally never get mad at the people who destroyed the institutions you love so much. You just get mad at the people who notice.

I fully trusted our scientific community at the start of covid and will continue to do so but with a much more skeptical eye going forward. As I believe we all should. I'm not jumping on any conspiracy theories or following fringe groups as a result of what happened.

 

[The Commish]

You guys literally never get mad at the people who destroyed the institutions you love so much. You just get mad at the people who notice.

I'm not really confident I know who "you guys" is in this statement, but giving the most generous interpretation I feel like I can, still makes this seem like a grossly inaccurate generalization. I get that this was an eye opener for you and you are now seeing what politics can do to what you've deemed important institutions for a really long time. This was your "peak behind the curtain" so to speak (at least it seems that way). Reality is, these institutions have been exactly what you are now seeing them to be for quite a while and COVID is merely the spotlight some of you needed to see it. This is why I have continuously advocated for people to ignore all the noise and rhetoric and go directly to the sources of the information. You label this approach as "a problem" for reasons I am still not clear on. It's necessary and what is required specifically because these institutions are "destroyed". There are no other options.

 

[Rich Conway]

This is why I have continuously advocated for people to ignore all the noise and rhetoric and go directly to the sources of the information. You label this approach as "a problem" for reasons I am still not clear on.

The reason this approach is problematic should be self-evident, especially in hindsight. 95%+ of people aren't capable of doing this. They just aren't smart enough, even if they wanted to. Worse, a significant portion of people think they're doing what you suggest when they're delving into conspiracy theories.

Ivan's right that public institutions need to do better in patiently explaining the entire truth. Similarly, our media needs to do a lot better in repeating it instead of trying to dumb it down for clicks. The latter has been going on for decades. Think of the "first they said eggs were healthy, then they weren't, then they were again" narrative, when that's not what researchers said at all; it's just what media headlines "interpreting" the research said.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You guys literally never get mad at the people who destroyed the institutions you love so much. You just get mad at the people who notice.

I'm not really confident I know who "you guys" is in this statement,

Start with the guy I was responding to.

 

[The Commish]

This is why I have continuously advocated for people to ignore all the noise and rhetoric and go directly to the sources of the information. You label this approach as "a problem" for reasons I am still not clear on.

The reason this approach is problematic should be self-evident, especially in hindsight. 95%+ of people aren't capable of doing this. They just aren't smart enough, even if they wanted to. Worse, a significant portion of people think they're doing what you suggest when they're delving into conspiracy theories.

Ivan's right that public institutions need to do better in patiently explaining the entire truth. Similarly, our media needs to do a lot better in repeating it instead of trying to dumb it down for clicks. The latter has been going on for decades. Think of the "first they said eggs were healthy, then they weren't, then they were again" narrative, when that's not what researchers said at all; it's just what media headlines "interpreting" the research said.

Of course they need to do better. You'll notice my comment on what they should have done:

"You didnt ask me, but the first thing they should have done was assume that people had a less than 3rd grade understanding of the immune system and educate everyone starting there. Then utilize the phrase "we dont know yet, but are working on getting the answers" WAY more than they did."

But I'm not going to give a pass, in this day and age where legit information is so readily available, for laziness. There is ZERO mystery around what sources are legit and what sources aren't. If one struggles with that, no amount of "better explanations" are going to help those who can't figure the simplest parts out. What we saw with COVID was politics taking over science. People can make excuses for why they chose to go that route, but that's what they chose. It wasn't because it was too complicated to understand. My 6 year old understood what was going on and what his part was in trying to help.

 

[Doug B]

Tell the truth. Not that most people aren't doing their level best, but there is a distinct "nudge" element that still runs through our large governmental organizations, an element that began around 2008 when Cass Sunstein, author of the book by that name, began to work within the executive branch as—get this—Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I hated that at the time and we saw the "nudge" philosophy, or the philosophy of shaped information, come home to roost no more than thirteen years later. People hate being manipulated.

I don't know how to keep this non-political, though this should be able to be discussed without breaking into red-blue factions. There is a more general, philosophical fulcrum about which this can be debated.

Briefly: What is the purpose of government if not -- at least sometimes -- to steer?

More specifically: How do we get a society to buy up masks "in an orderly fashion" -- rather than in a catch-as-catch-can fashion -- to ensure that essential workers would have a ready supply? And how do we quickly get a high vaccination rate through a society while equivocating about that vaccine at every turn because the events of the medium-term future weren't able to be predicted with much confidence?

I'm not convinced that naked truth-telling is absolutely, every time, the best approach to take. Much more often than not? Yes, no doubt. Every single time, without fail? Cannot agree.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The institutions still aren't doing a good job IMO. It seems further clarifying vulnerable populations and improving ventilation in indoor spaces should be areas of focus. I never really hear a thing about those. I can't say I pay nearly as much attention anymore, but didn't we learn that the disease disproportionately affects older populations and that it's mainly spread indoors, not outdoors? I'd gain back some trust if they actually did something about improving ventilation standards, for example.

 

[Scoresman]

The institutions have been crap since the beginning. CDC, WHO, etc.

But reputable doctors have not. They have been the ones to listen to. YLE is a perfect example. The problem is people go from distrusting institutions like the CDC to listening to some rando on tiktok spouting off about random deaths. There's a middle ground for good information, and it's actual doctors. It's not hard to look up the source of the info you are getting.

 

[opensourcebeer]

Each passing day the anti-vaccine talking points get more and more nonsensical and flat out incorrect.

And yet they gain traction. It points to a deep distrust in institutions and informational gatekeeping and dissemination. I don't know what to say other than that. I believe the vaccines were a godsend and I think coming into the thread asking if one has stopped drinking the Kool-Aid is simply inflammatory and looking to instigate something. It's also a mark of hubris that is completely unwarranted and an example of being horribly wrong while being indignantly above it all—one of the worst of that kind I've seen in a while.

We could get into a long back and forth as to what it "points to". I'll simply say that the research on this virus and the study on this virus is/was, for the most part, transparent if one took the time to find it and follow it. If people settled on being lead around by others on it, the bold may be the result, but that's on those who chose to go that route. Maybe in the future, they'll follow the studies and scientists more than talking heads trying to get clicks on web page who's primary goals are getting traffic through their sites and NOT getting out correct information.

The problem is that this required doing your own research. The institutions that were supposed to provide reliable information failed to do so in pretty spectacular fashion.

For example, we were told that the vaccines would prevent transmission. They obviously don't. Now, I know this is where people want to throw up their hands and talk about reducing the severity of symptoms and herd immunity* and I get all that, but the bottom line is that society is made up of human beings, and some of those human beings are going to tune you out when you consistently tell them stuff that turns out to be untrue. The poster that everybody is mad about is a product of an environment that was created, in part, by our institutions. Maybe instead of blaming him, we should blame them instead.


* There is a strong case to be made for weak vaccines. We all know that the covid vaccines only provide weak protection against infection. So if I get vaccinated and nobody else does, my vaccine isn't going to do me much good. But if everybody gets vaccinated, or if the whole population is either vaccinated or has antibodies from prior infection, our combined "weak" protection becomes pretty robust at the population level. But that's not the argument that was made for vaccination -- the case that was actuallly made was "If you get the vaccine, you won't get covid." I strongly suspect that the people in charge intentionally decided that the truth was too complicated and they were hoping that a white lie would be more effective in motivating the behavior that they wanted. They did that over and over throughout the pandemic, and it was disaterous in terms of social trust.

Don’t really want to rehash all this, but you realize the original vaccines were pretty good in limiting transmission?

The virus changed, as did vaccine efficacy. That’s not a failure of the original messaging, unless you expected a public course in virology and vaccinology from the get-go.

Pretty sure academic virologists were aware of viral evolution in 2020. They didn't just discover this.

Knowing it exists, and predicting what will happen are two very, very different things.

Not every virus evolves to break through vaccination, and it wasn’t a foregone conclusion SARS-CoV-2 would do so either, even to the best virologists. And some of that trajectory was contingent upon vaccine uptake.

Moreover, scientific advancement is predicated on revising hypotheses, as new information becomes available. But among some people, hypothesis revision itself instills mistrust.

So how should public health officials communicated their uncertainty?

It's a great question IMO.

I suspect that public health officials had a lot political pressure to talk about things in absolutes, and as you explained, it doesn't really work that way.

I also think they had a tough time overcoming the constant bombardment of misinformation from grifters and political hacks to the public.

 

[sho nuff]

The institutions have been crap since the beginning. CDC, WHO, etc.

But reputable doctors have not. They have been the ones to listen to. YLE is a perfect example. The problem is people go from distrusting institutions like the CDC to listening to some rando on tiktok spouting off about random deaths. There's a middle ground for good information, and it's actual doctors. It's not hard to look up the source of the info you are getting.

Well said and a better way of saying what I was trying to get at.

 

[Doug B]

But reputable doctors have not. They have been the ones to listen to. YLE is a perfect example. The problem is people go from distrusting institutions like the CDC to listening to some rando on tiktok spouting off about random deaths. There's a middle ground for good information, and it's actual doctors. It's not hard to look up the source of the info you are getting.

Small quibble is that it was and still is trivial to find practicing physicians who were anti-vax, thought COVID was a hoax, etc. So someone could say "Well, MY physician said [whatever]" and consider that the end of the debate.

All of American society really needed to pull the rope in one unified direction, and I guess we're really not set up to act that way.

 

[Terminalxylem]

So how should public health officials communicated their uncertainty?

You didnt ask me, but the first thing they should have done was assume that people had a less than 3rd grade understanding of the immune system and educate everyone starting there. Then utilize the phrase "we dont know yet, but are working on getting the answers" WAY more than they did.

I think the message was extremely basic, not far from elementary school depth, yet there was demand for nuance well above that level. But fundamentally, the evidence base is pretty weak for the entire field of infection control. Most of the recommendations come from expert opinion, rather than hard science.

Admitting our ignorance only goes so far, when knowledge gaps are quickly filled by people doing their own "research". And "alternative" theories usually aren't subject to the same scrutiny as institutional dogma, especially when they pander to our inherent biases.

While public health officials certainly could have done better, the system is ripe for failure; hence all the institutional mistrust. Not sure how that can be undone/overcome.

 

[Terminalxylem]

The institutions still aren't doing a good job IMO. It seems further clarifying vulnerable populations and improving ventilation in indoor spaces should be areas of focus. I never really hear a thing about those. I can't say I pay nearly as much attention anymore, but didn't we learn that the disease disproportionately affects older populations and that it's mainly spread indoors, not outdoors? I'd gain back some trust if they actually did something about improving ventilation standards, for example.

What actionable, evidenced-based policy(ies) do you suggest?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The institutions still aren't doing a good job IMO. It seems further clarifying vulnerable populations and improving ventilation in indoor spaces should be areas of focus. I never really hear a thing about those. I can't say I pay nearly as much attention anymore, but didn't we learn that the disease disproportionately affects older populations and that it's mainly spread indoors, not outdoors? I'd gain back some trust if they actually did something about improving ventilation standards, for example.

What actionable, evidenced-based policy(ies) do you suggest?

If the response is that GUP from the Internet needs to be out here suggesting specific policies on behalf of the institutions, then we are more screwed in these institutions than I thought.

My point is that we learned about these outcomes, and it would be helpful if that information were acted upon in a comprehensive way (public and private) to improve things in the response going forward. And institutions might gain back some credibility as a result.

So at the risk of naively tossing something out there (it's a valid question and I'll give it a good faith effort), offering businesses tax incentives to improve ventilation systems up to OSHA and CDC guidance so that more indoor spaces have adequate (or better) ventilation would be something that could increase public confidence IMO. Then widely promoting said policy so that more businesses take advantage, so that more people can feel confident going to more indoor spaces, and also highlighting that, hey, the response from the government, these agencies and departments actually improved over time based on what we learned. That doesn't seem to be the case currently based on the recent responses in this thread.

 

[The Commish]

So how should public health officials communicated their uncertainty?

You didnt ask me, but the first thing they should have done was assume that people had a less than 3rd grade understanding of the immune system and educate everyone starting there. Then utilize the phrase "we dont know yet, but are working on getting the answers" WAY more than they did.

I think the message was extremely basic, not far from elementary school depth, yet there was demand for nuance well above that level. But fundamentally, the evidence base is pretty weak for the entire field of infection control. Most of the recommendations come from expert opinion, rather than hard science.

Admitting our ignorance only goes so far, when knowledge gaps are quickly filled by people doing their own "research". And "alternative" theories usually aren't subject to the same scrutiny as institutional dogma, especially when they pander to our inherent biases.

While public health officials certainly could have done better, the system is ripe for failure; hence all the institutional mistrust. Not sure how that can be undone/overcome.

I can understand why you'd think this absolutely knowing your background. It needed to be significantly more elementary than it was. Like "foreign proteins are something your body attacks" basic.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

YLE had an interesting interview last week along the lines of the current discussion in the thread here.

Why did we lose trust during the pandemic?

My conversation with Kelley Krohnert

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

and then the followup to that piece:

Five things I heard from you

Regarding the last post on "Why are we losing trust"

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The institutions still aren't doing a good job IMO. It seems further clarifying vulnerable populations and improving ventilation in indoor spaces should be areas of focus. I never really hear a thing about those. I can't say I pay nearly as much attention anymore, but didn't we learn that the disease disproportionately affects older populations and that it's mainly spread indoors, not outdoors? I'd gain back some trust if they actually did something about improving ventilation standards, for example.

What actionable, evidenced-based policy(ies) do you suggest?

If the response is that GUP from the Internet needs to be out here suggesting specific policies on behalf of the institutions, then we are more screwed in these institutions than I thought.

My point is that we learned about these outcomes, and it would be helpful if that information were acted upon in a comprehensive way (public and private) to improve things in the response going forward. And institutions might gain back some credibility as a result.

So at the risk of naively tossing something out there (it's a valid question and I'll give it a good faith effort), offering businesses tax incentives to improve ventilation systems up to OSHA and CDC guidance so that more indoor spaces have adequate (or better) ventilation would be something that could increase public confidence IMO. Then widely promoting said policy so that more businesses take advantage, so that more people can feel confident going to more indoor spaces, and also highlighting that, hey, the response from the government, these agencies and departments actually improved over time based on what we learned. That doesn't seem to be the case currently based on the recent responses in this thread.

Those sound like reasonable policies to improve ventilation, and governments should do stuff like that because it will make people healthier, but I'm not at all convinced it will rebuild public trust. The nature of public health is that if your recommendations are successful no one will ever know how much you helped them, and in fact there's a decent chance your recommendations will be seen as overkill. I was a toddler during the '76 flu outbreak, but my understanding was that the reaction was seen as overly aggressive (it didn't help that there were issues with the vaccine, which caused Guillain-Barré Syndrome in some patients). Now it's possible that the vaccinations saved many thousands of lives, and the net benefits far exceeded the cost to the 300-some Americans who got GBS. But there's no way to prove that, and the public perception was that the government mismanaged the outbreak

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Guys, there was never any possibility that people were going to isolate without symptoms indefinitely. We were always going to land right back at the equilibrium of "go back to work when you feel okay." My evidence for this proposition is having lived around other human beings for 51 years, observing their behavior and customs. Normal people are not comfortable sitting at home when they feel well -- it feels like shirking, and the kind of people you select for at the time of employment will refuse to do that.

If you honestly thought it was going to go differently, you need to update your views on how human beings are wired.

For me the issue isn't people coming to work feeling fine but testing positive it's people coming to work with symptoms of Something and still not taking precautions. Covid or not, our coughing, sneezing, sniffling selfs had 2 years to relearn behavior and instead we may be headed back to the old ways. Feeling well enough to work but being genuinely sick may be a moment to work from home or take a day. Or at least isolate at work and use the masks we still have around the office, it helps.

Yeah, I would prefer that people just stay home if they're ill. But as you note, we've never really had that as a norm. Some of us need to accept that we tried that for a couple of years, and most of us preferred the old way.

This isn't a case of people being stupid. We knew how colds and other respiratory illnesses were spread in 2019, and we still know it now. The issue is that most people would just as soon deal with the occasional cold than miss work because they have the sniffles. It's fine to have different preferences than other folks, but at some point you kind of have to accept that society has spoken, and they went the other way.

This seems like another case where we're focusing on individual behavior when the systemic issues are far more important (see also, "recycling").

I'm sure there are plenty of workaholics who come into the office while sick, but I suspect their numbers pale in comparison to people who feel compelled to come in. Maybe their employer combines vacation, personal and sick days into "PTO", so dragging themselves in while sick means an extra day of vacation with the family over the summer. Or maybe their employer doesn't even offer paid sick days. Or maybe they're hourly workers. Or maybe not showing up for work, even for legitimate reasons, will put their jobs in jeopardy.

Point being, if we really wanted to prioritize reducing the spread via office workers, we would have to do a lot more to re-align incentives. I'm not saying we should definitely do that; aside from a few obvious things like mandating paid sick leave, I'm honestly not even sure how we would. I'm just saying that if we don't, it's entirely predictable that we'll go back to the "old way"

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The institutions still aren't doing a good job IMO. It seems further clarifying vulnerable populations and improving ventilation in indoor spaces should be areas of focus. I never really hear a thing about those. I can't say I pay nearly as much attention anymore, but didn't we learn that the disease disproportionately affects older populations and that it's mainly spread indoors, not outdoors? I'd gain back some trust if they actually did something about improving ventilation standards, for example.

What actionable, evidenced-based policy(ies) do you suggest?

If the response is that GUP from the Internet needs to be out here suggesting specific policies on behalf of the institutions, then we are more screwed in these institutions than I thought.

My point is that we learned about these outcomes, and it would be helpful if that information were acted upon in a comprehensive way (public and private) to improve things in the response going forward. And institutions might gain back some credibility as a result.

So at the risk of naively tossing something out there (it's a valid question and I'll give it a good faith effort), offering businesses tax incentives to improve ventilation systems up to OSHA and CDC guidance so that more indoor spaces have adequate (or better) ventilation would be something that could increase public confidence IMO. Then widely promoting said policy so that more businesses take advantage, so that more people can feel confident going to more indoor spaces, and also highlighting that, hey, the response from the government, these agencies and departments actually improved over time based on what we learned. That doesn't seem to be the case currently based on the recent responses in this thread.

Those sound like reasonable policies to improve ventilation, and governments should do stuff like that because it will make people healthier, but I'm not at all convinced it will rebuild public trust. The nature of public health is that if your recommendations are successful no one will ever know how much you helped them, and in fact there's a decent chance your recommendations will be seen as overkill. I was a toddler during the '76 flu outbreak, but my understanding was that the reaction was seen as overly aggressive (it didn't help that there were issues with the vaccine, which caused Guillain-Barré Syndrome in some patients). Now it's possible that the vaccinations saved many thousands of lives, and the net benefits far exceeded the cost to the 300-some Americans who got GBS. But there's no way to prove that, and the public perception was that the government mismanaged the outbreak

Thinking about this some more, I wonder if the dissatisfaction with institutions during the pandemic was inevitable. I don't know if anyone has done a broad international survey, but I strongly suspect that, if they did, we'd see a "Reverse Lake Wobegon Effect", where majorities in every single country would rate their own government's response as being below average. The fact is, the pandemic was truly awful; millions died, and pretty much every single person on earth had their lives significantly disrupted. It's really hard to emerge from a traumatic period like that with grace toward anyone.

That's not to absolve institutions (or individuals, for that matter) for the mistakes they made. But we spend a lot more time focusing on those mistakes than on the things we got right. Some of that is negativity bias, but some is simply due to the fact that we will never know about many of the tragedies we avoided by getting things right

 

[culdeus]

Each passing day the anti-vaccine talking points get more and more nonsensical and flat out incorrect.

And yet they gain traction. It points to a deep distrust in institutions and informational gatekeeping and dissemination. I don't know what to say other than that. I believe the vaccines were a godsend and I think coming into the thread asking if one has stopped drinking the Kool-Aid is simply inflammatory and looking to instigate something. It's also a mark of hubris that is completely unwarranted and an example of being horribly wrong while being indignantly above it all—one of the worst of that kind I've seen in a while.

We could get into a long back and forth as to what it "points to". I'll simply say that the research on this virus and the study on this virus is/was, for the most part, transparent if one took the time to find it and follow it. If people settled on being lead around by others on it, the bold may be the result, but that's on those who chose to go that route. Maybe in the future, they'll follow the studies and scientists more than talking heads trying to get clicks on web page who's primary goals are getting traffic through their sites and NOT getting out correct information.

The problem is that this required doing your own research. The institutions that were supposed to provide reliable information failed to do so in pretty spectacular fashion.

For example, we were told that the vaccines would prevent transmission. They obviously don't. Now, I know this is where people want to throw up their hands and talk about reducing the severity of symptoms and herd immunity* and I get all that, but the bottom line is that society is made up of human beings, and some of those human beings are going to tune you out when you consistently tell them stuff that turns out to be untrue. The poster that everybody is mad about is a product of an environment that was created, in part, by our institutions. Maybe instead of blaming him, we should blame them instead.


* There is a strong case to be made for weak vaccines. We all know that the covid vaccines only provide weak protection against infection. So if I get vaccinated and nobody else does, my vaccine isn't going to do me much good. But if everybody gets vaccinated, or if the whole population is either vaccinated or has antibodies from prior infection, our combined "weak" protection becomes pretty robust at the population level. But that's not the argument that was made for vaccination -- the case that was actuallly made was "If you get the vaccine, you won't get covid." I strongly suspect that the people in charge intentionally decided that the truth was too complicated and they were hoping that a white lie would be more effective in motivating the behavior that they wanted. They did that over and over throughout the pandemic, and it was disaterous in terms of social trust.

Don’t really want to rehash all this, but you realize the original vaccines were pretty good in limiting transmission?

The virus changed, as did vaccine efficacy. That’s not a failure of the original messaging, unless you expected a public course in virology and vaccinology from the get-go.

Pretty sure academic virologists were aware of viral evolution in 2020. They didn't just discover this.

Knowing it exists, and predicting what will happen are two very, very different things.

Not every virus evolves to break through vaccination, and it wasn’t a foregone conclusion SARS-CoV-2 would do so either, even to the best virologists. And some of that trajectory was contingent upon vaccine uptake.

Moreover, scientific advancement is predicated on revising hypotheses, as new information becomes available. But among some people, hypothesis revision itself instills mistrust.

So how should public health officials communicated their uncertainty?

It's a great question IMO.

I suspect that public health officials had a lot political pressure to talk about things in absolutes, and as you explained, it doesn't really work that way.

I also think they had a tough time overcoming the constant bombardment of misinformation from grifters and political hacks to the public.

I mean you had phases where people ate horse paste because people got better on it because they had...worms and COVID.

It wasn't like the internet did much better than the govt.

The mask rollouts were atrocious. There needed to be more realistic expectations but they were told to push it.

Warp speed though was great. Just amazing development of a drug that just flattened this thing deader than dead.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Each passing day the anti-vaccine talking points get more and more nonsensical and flat out incorrect.

And yet they gain traction. It points to a deep distrust in institutions and informational gatekeeping and dissemination. I don't know what to say other than that. I believe the vaccines were a godsend and I think coming into the thread asking if one has stopped drinking the Kool-Aid is simply inflammatory and looking to instigate something. It's also a mark of hubris that is completely unwarranted and an example of being horribly wrong while being indignantly above it all—one of the worst of that kind I've seen in a while.

We could get into a long back and forth as to what it "points to". I'll simply say that the research on this virus and the study on this virus is/was, for the most part, transparent if one took the time to find it and follow it. If people settled on being lead around by others on it, the bold may be the result, but that's on those who chose to go that route. Maybe in the future, they'll follow the studies and scientists more than talking heads trying to get clicks on web page who's primary goals are getting traffic through their sites and NOT getting out correct information.

The problem is that this required doing your own research. The institutions that were supposed to provide reliable information failed to do so in pretty spectacular fashion.

For example, we were told that the vaccines would prevent transmission. They obviously don't. Now, I know this is where people want to throw up their hands and talk about reducing the severity of symptoms and herd immunity* and I get all that, but the bottom line is that society is made up of human beings, and some of those human beings are going to tune you out when you consistently tell them stuff that turns out to be untrue. The poster that everybody is mad about is a product of an environment that was created, in part, by our institutions. Maybe instead of blaming him, we should blame them instead.


* There is a strong case to be made for weak vaccines. We all know that the covid vaccines only provide weak protection against infection. So if I get vaccinated and nobody else does, my vaccine isn't going to do me much good. But if everybody gets vaccinated, or if the whole population is either vaccinated or has antibodies from prior infection, our combined "weak" protection becomes pretty robust at the population level. But that's not the argument that was made for vaccination -- the case that was actuallly made was "If you get the vaccine, you won't get covid." I strongly suspect that the people in charge intentionally decided that the truth was too complicated and they were hoping that a white lie would be more effective in motivating the behavior that they wanted. They did that over and over throughout the pandemic, and it was disaterous in terms of social trust.

Don’t really want to rehash all this, but you realize the original vaccines were pretty good in limiting transmission?

The virus changed, as did vaccine efficacy. That’s not a failure of the original messaging, unless you expected a public course in virology and vaccinology from the get-go.

Pretty sure academic virologists were aware of viral evolution in 2020. They didn't just discover this.

Knowing it exists, and predicting what will happen are two very, very different things.

Not every virus evolves to break through vaccination, and it wasn’t a foregone conclusion SARS-CoV-2 would do so either, even to the best virologists. And some of that trajectory was contingent upon vaccine uptake.

Moreover, scientific advancement is predicated on revising hypotheses, as new information becomes available. But among some people, hypothesis revision itself instills mistrust.

So how should public health officials communicated their uncertainty?

It's a great question IMO.

I suspect that public health officials had a lot political pressure to talk about things in absolutes, and as you explained, it doesn't really work that way.

I also think they had a tough time overcoming the constant bombardment of misinformation from grifters and political hacks to the public.

I mean you had phases where people ate horse paste because people got better on it because they had...worms and COVID.

It wasn't like the internet did much better than the govt.

The mask rollouts were atrocious. There needed to be more realistic expectations but they were told to push it.

Warp speed though was great. Just amazing development of a drug that just flattened this thing deader than dead.

It wasn't a drug, it never got it dead. I got covid, once, then never again. I got it before the vaxx and never took the vaxx. Time will tell, I have yet to be proven wrong.

 

[IC FBGCav]

You all done drinking the kool-aid?

I'll bite. What kool-aid you talking about, exactly? Please elaborate if you care to.

Vax

Out of curiosity, how many folks that continue to post in here do you think have medical training, background or credentials? I know you seem to work in the medical field.....anybody else in here? Or are we just getting regurgitation from Joe Rogan and posts from Facebook?

In NC, to increase vaxx participation they had a lottery and gave a million dollars to 4 people that got the vaxx. Does this sound right to you on any level?

Sometimes, people are so stinking dense that even in the face of all the evidence, they still believe conspiracy theory hocum. Those kind of gullible people respond well to pie-in-the-sky promises of a lottery win as incentive.

For the public good, sometimes you throw a mini-lotto; sometimes you bite your tongue responding to someone on the internet.

So you think the mass consensus are right? So when Trump wins in a landslide, that is right?

People in power lied about the truth. It's that simple. We are too dumb to know the truth, right?

Let me ask you this then and I do appreciate your tangent about Rand Paul being an eye doctor doesn't mean he's qualified to speak about Covid as an expert on the matter. What is the current source of your information regarding Covid, vaccines, people in power lying, etc.....just curious what sources you get your information from currently. I'm curious what others read and listen to when their conclusions seem so assured.

I get your point, and in your questions you want me to give you information from people you just don't believe. That is easy, it get that.

Are you getting vaxx still? Jabbing the kids too? Back up any claim about the vaxx that people clamoring for 3 years ago. There is none.

 

[WVU Alum]

“Hey, you are wrong! Lot’s of articles say so. Prove me wrong.”
No, thanks. Homework sucks.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

FDA authorizes new drug to protect immune compromised from Covid-19

Immunocompromised people get a new drug to protect against Covid-19 for the first time since the Omicron variants forced another drug off the market.

www.statnews.com

 

[the moops]

I have yet to be proven wrong.

You have been proven wrong a thousand times over in this thread

 

[IC FBGCav]

I have yet to be proven wrong.

You have been proven wrong a thousand times over in this thread

Name one

 

[Terminalxylem]

Paxlovid doesn't look as helpful as initial studies, and might not make a difference at all, in vaccinated individuals.

Pfizer sponsored, New England Journal Study

RESULTS​

Among the 1296 participants who underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population, 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit. The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P=0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, −0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −2.0 to 0.4). The percentages of participants with adverse events were similar in the two groups (25.8% with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and 24.1% with placebo). In the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were dysgeusia (in 5.8% of the participants) and diarrhea (in 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS​

The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and those who received placebo.

Although the study wasn't powered adequately to state definitively, they also found no difference in hospitalizations for covid, or deaths.