7 ms·

I think covid's lasting impact will be one of vastly growing mistrust in the political and scientific organizations that society looks to for guidance. From th

I think covid's lasting impact will be one of vastly growing mistrust in the political and scientific organizations that society looks to for guidance. From the CDC's ever changing guidelines, the liability-free, fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission, the labeling of media pushed medical hypothesis as "science" and any debate as heresy, the effortless militarization of common citizens to socially pressure and attack their neighbors into compliance, and the coordinated "fact checking" campaigns of powerful organizations that have turned out to be complete lies. It's all done lasting damage to societal trust... from our own families and neighbors, to the heights of academic and governmental leadership. People are rightfully asking many questions. Are the FDA, CDC, and the WHO corrupted by big Pharma companies and political groups that care more about saving face and profit than the truth? Is academia similarly corrupted to create research that supports the chosen narrative? Is "trusting the experts" really the embodiment of science... or one of religious zealotry?

robomartin 4y ago
- nomel 4y ago
  And, it has reached the top, with the most disturbing phrase I’ve seen come out of the White House [1]: “When you are not with where the majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dButKWnTmG8&feature=emb_title https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dButKWnTmG8&feature=emb_title
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme? I mean, I get that maybe they're using the word extreme to equal bad (maybe not), but I think this is just the definition of the word. Why do you think it's bad to have an extreme opinion? I probably have quite a few of extreme opinions. Some wrong, some right, some I cherish, some I dismiss.
    - nomel 4y ago
      > Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme? Absolutely not. From the dictionary: extreme Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense. Being far beyond the norm: synonym: excessive
    - tbrownaw 4y ago
      > Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme? Nope. Consider, say, this chart of adult male height (no idea if it's actually accurate, that's not really the point): https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ip4sMYv438c/TRjMhUlQczI/AAAAAAAAABs/wLeI3UlHIPM/s1600/Height%2BDistribution.jpg https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ip4sMYv438c/TRjMhUlQczI/AAAAAAAAA... The majority are around 5'7" - 5'10". "Extreme" would be the tail ends, say <5'1" or >6'3". There's a fair bit between those, that is neither part of the majority nor extreme.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    The majority of any population (not just USA) are ignorant about most topics. Masses are not intelligent. This is particularly true of a range of topics, from economics and financial domains to anything in the sciences and engineering. The masses are also really bad at being intelligent about anything that requires a long term view or planning. Given that, it is probably fair to say that the intelligent people are likely not where the majority opinion lies. Not always, of course, there are no absolutes. Being outside the majority generally requires applying critical thinking and sometimes a lot of work to truly understand something. My mother used to vote based on who she liked. I mean, quite literally, not much different from a beauty contest. If she liked the person --for whatever reason-- she voted for them. I loved my mom, but her voting was ignorant and likely damaging to society. I hypothesize, based on conversations, that most people vote this way (or straight-up party affiliation, which is equally stupid). As an example I use the work I had to undertake in order to understand something seemingly simple: The reality vs. the fantasy of photovoltaic solar energy. I was 100% on the fantasy camp when I built my 13 kW array. It didn't take long for me to, as an engineer, start asking questions based on what I was seeing. The full understanding took an honest evaluation based on actually having skin in the game, experience, math and more. It probably took me a couple of years to go from being a solar energy cult member to being a solar energy realist. I venture to guess that 99.9% of people will never take that journey. If understanding that the masses are wrong makes one "extreme", so be it. These days we find all kinds of ways to denigrate and stomp on people who don't push accepted narratives. The masses don't realize that politicians create divisive narratives with the sole purpose of capturing votes and retaining or growing power. They do not --regardless of party-- work for us. They work for themselves. They work to stay in power. That is, in CS terminology, their fitness function --what drives their evolution and actions. Their power is evidence of just how stupid populations have been over the years. On a much darker side, this statement out of government --any government-- is scary in ways history has shown us time and time again. Genocides have been perpetrated because the masses --ignorant and stupid as they are-- are easily manipulated to fall in line with the politics of the those in power. The Armenian, Jewish and Darfour genocides are just a few examples of this. Mobs are not intelligent. We should actually embrace those who do not agree with the majority, not expunge them.
    - 4y ago
mikkergp 4y ago
The question I want to know is how much of this is "bad" corruption (worse than you would find in a 350 million population relatively free democracy/republic) and how much of this is sausage making. Was there any reasonable way for this to go well, given the realities of living in a complex democracy where we don't agree on how it should have gone? Is it inevitable that societal trust breaks down just because societies are complex things? So far, I've been losing more sleep over the people losing trust than the people breaking trust.
dmix 4y ago
Another big one is how they purposefully lied about masks not working at first to protect supplies (or at least didn’t bother recommending them), then turned to everyone should use cloth masks, then cloth masks don’t work, and then masking kids all day long at school was pointless, etc. The whole back and forth, unquestioning compliance at all costs strategy, and purposeful deception just makes everyone exhausted, skeptical, and builds resentment. The worst part is that there isn’t any big plans in place to get supplies for better-than-N95 respirators for hospital workers. I have doubts even N95s will be widely available to the public by the next pandemic.
- endgame 4y ago
  http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.co... U.S. Surgeon-General on Twitter, 2022-02-29: > Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! > They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
  - dmix 4y ago
    Classic
- somehnguy 4y ago
  N95 masks have been widely available to the public for a long time, via any department or store that carries home improvement supplies. They’re used for a variety of things. Like a year ago I walked into Home Depot and bought a 3 pack to wear while doing some sanding.
ausbah 4y ago
>CDC's ever changing guidelines this was much more of a presentation problem then anything. of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak, people's perception of science just isn't that. >liability-free, fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission of course you'll fast track a solution when you have a global pandemic? seems like a no brainer? and I don't recall transmission ever being promised, only a substantial lower chance of severe infection and death - which was a main goal to help reduce loads on hospitals? >labeling of media pushed medical hypothesis as "science" and any debate as heresy medical hypothesis are a part of science? and I think there's definitely room for debate on how vaccines, closures, masks, etc. could have been done - but when the debate is just over if masks or vaccines even work it's kinda silly to be wasting time talking with the "opposition" >the effortless militarization of common citizens to socially pressure and attack their neighbors into compliance I don't see the problem with this sort of social pressure in regards to a pandemic. it's not like being reported to the "covid gestapo" for not social distancing for something
- nomel 4y ago
  > of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak No. Science very very rarely changes. The confidence in the possible explanations is what changes. They communicated low confidence information with high confidence. The trust was destroyed with, what appeared to be, a concerted effort to silence those that accurately communicated the low confidence, or presented other equally possible, and far too often eventually-correct, understandings. I think this covers all the other points, above.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    "We're sorry millions of you are dying, but we got nothing for ya'" may be good science but horrific politics.
    - nomel 4y ago
      That’s, obviously, nonsense/hyperbole. I would suggest looking at the communication in Germany for a good example of science communication.
alphabettsy 4y ago
I think you’re leaving out the part where, for political or other reasons, there are and were groups motivated to sell distrust in American institutions as well as their political rivals. You cannot seriously have a debate about this mistrust without acknowledging the role of misinformation and motivated actors looking to sew mistrust. Remember when 5G causing Covid was trending? Or memes about how hot water in a netipot would kill it? Or that if you had a strange cold anytime in 2019 you probably already had it? Theories about microchips in the vaccine started spreading before the vaccine was announced. People becoming magnetic after the vaccine was trending.
- slg 4y ago
  >I think you’re leaving out the part where, for political reasons, there are and were groups motivated to sell distrust in American institutions as well as their political rivals. The conversations on HN about the lab leak hypothesis always leave this out. They often imply the politicization of covid came from scientists trying to protect themselves rather than from politicians. Maybe the lab leak theory is true, but you can't dismiss the fact that it first rose to public prominence because politicians pushed it as a way to shift the blame for the pandemic. Therefore the anti-lab leak argument was heavily political specifically because it was responding to an already politicized argument that had little evidence to support it.
  - TrispusAttucks 4y ago
    Not true. Lab leak hypothesis came up early from NIH's own people. We have the emails. Government officials had these emails before "We the people" did so would have been first to sound the alarm publicly. https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/emails-reveal-suspected-covid-leaked-from-a-wuhan-lab-then-censored-themselves/ https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/emails-reveal-suspected-covid-... https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/HHRG-117-GO24-20211201-SD004.pdf https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/...
    - slg 4y ago
      I'm unclear what specifically in those links do you think contradicts what I said. The lab theory being discussed in scientific circles does not change the fact that politicians are the ones who pushed it into public discourse for their own gain and not because of any scientific pursuit of truth. Also side note, an opinion piece from the New York Post isn't exactly the most trustworthy source.
015a 4y ago
With the latest being: EUA approval, and the preemptive purchase of over 100M doses, of the new Pfizer/Moderna omicron vaccine after only being tested in mice. Sure, its similar to previous iterations which have undergone human testing. Sure, we have a good understanding of how they work, theoretically. The FDA isn't an entirely corrupt and incompetent organization. But without human efficacy and safety data, it feels beyond likely to me that acceptance rates among even the "silent majority" of people will be low. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorize-new-covid-boosters-data-tests-people-rcna45387 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorize-new... [2] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/biden-harris-administration-secures-105-million-doses-of-pfizers-latest-covid-19-vaccine-for-fall-vaccination-campaign.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/biden-harris-admin...
tinco 4y ago
The liability-free fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission greatly restored my belief that we might survive the next large event. It was rolled out quickly, and it actually greatly reduced mortality. Reducing transmission would've been epic, but we can't win them all. The CDC's ever changing guidelines were good, but their not admitting that at some point the had been wrong or worse were flat out lying did hurt societal trust a lot. The fact that social pressure on our neighbours and government recommendations failed to such an extent that we needed extra policing just to get people to keep to reasonable curfews sucked. I don't know where you pull the "effortless militarization of common citizens .. who attack" from, but a. that didn't happen, and b. it was the people who did not follow government recommendations and social pressure that were out there militarizing and attacking their neighbours. People are asking questions, that's how science works. But basing laws and regulations on established science and expert advice, that's how society is supposed to work. You can be angry about the state of science, or about the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The fact that we've been able to respond swiftly based on expert advice and on established science is a good thing. Maybe next time we'll make sure those experts and scientists have more competence and better alignment to our ethical values.
- nradov 4y ago
  Imposing mandatory curfews was never reasonable. That was never justified on an evidence-based medicine basis, and it violated the fundamental human right of free assembly. Those involved in policing such policies should be ashamed of themselves.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    Shame this gets downvotes. If we are following the science there should be ample reproducible research out there (conduced before the pandemic) showing that curfews had enough benefits to justify their extreme costs. But there is nothing. There is no research that lockdowns would be worth their cost either but here we are…
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
rtikulit 4y ago
Are you claiming that all authorities, organizations, businesses and experts acted (and are continuing to act) largely in bad faith?
- namose 4y ago
  It seems pretty clear to me that regarding the origin of the virus specifically, there has been bad-faith dismissal of the lab leak theory due to the politicization of GoF research.

robomartin 4y ago

nomel 4y ago
And, it has reached the top, with the most disturbing phrase I’ve seen come out of the White House [1]: “When you are not with where the majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dButKWnTmG8&feature=emb_title https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dButKWnTmG8&feature=emb_title
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme? I mean, I get that maybe they're using the word extreme to equal bad (maybe not), but I think this is just the definition of the word. Why do you think it's bad to have an extreme opinion? I probably have quite a few of extreme opinions. Some wrong, some right, some I cherish, some I dismiss.
  - nomel 4y ago
    > Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme? Absolutely not. From the dictionary: extreme Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense. Being far beyond the norm: synonym: excessive
  - tbrownaw 4y ago
    > Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme? Nope. Consider, say, this chart of adult male height (no idea if it's actually accurate, that's not really the point): https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ip4sMYv438c/TRjMhUlQczI/AAAAAAAAABs/wLeI3UlHIPM/s1600/Height%2BDistribution.jpg https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ip4sMYv438c/TRjMhUlQczI/AAAAAAAAA... The majority are around 5'7" - 5'10". "Extreme" would be the tail ends, say <5'1" or >6'3". There's a fair bit between those, that is neither part of the majority nor extreme.
- robomartin 4y ago
  The majority of any population (not just USA) are ignorant about most topics. Masses are not intelligent. This is particularly true of a range of topics, from economics and financial domains to anything in the sciences and engineering. The masses are also really bad at being intelligent about anything that requires a long term view or planning. Given that, it is probably fair to say that the intelligent people are likely not where the majority opinion lies. Not always, of course, there are no absolutes. Being outside the majority generally requires applying critical thinking and sometimes a lot of work to truly understand something. My mother used to vote based on who she liked. I mean, quite literally, not much different from a beauty contest. If she liked the person --for whatever reason-- she voted for them. I loved my mom, but her voting was ignorant and likely damaging to society. I hypothesize, based on conversations, that most people vote this way (or straight-up party affiliation, which is equally stupid). As an example I use the work I had to undertake in order to understand something seemingly simple: The reality vs. the fantasy of photovoltaic solar energy. I was 100% on the fantasy camp when I built my 13 kW array. It didn't take long for me to, as an engineer, start asking questions based on what I was seeing. The full understanding took an honest evaluation based on actually having skin in the game, experience, math and more. It probably took me a couple of years to go from being a solar energy cult member to being a solar energy realist. I venture to guess that 99.9% of people will never take that journey. If understanding that the masses are wrong makes one "extreme", so be it. These days we find all kinds of ways to denigrate and stomp on people who don't push accepted narratives. The masses don't realize that politicians create divisive narratives with the sole purpose of capturing votes and retaining or growing power. They do not --regardless of party-- work for us. They work for themselves. They work to stay in power. That is, in CS terminology, their fitness function --what drives their evolution and actions. Their power is evidence of just how stupid populations have been over the years. On a much darker side, this statement out of government --any government-- is scary in ways history has shown us time and time again. Genocides have been perpetrated because the masses --ignorant and stupid as they are-- are easily manipulated to fall in line with the politics of the those in power. The Armenian, Jewish and Darfour genocides are just a few examples of this. Mobs are not intelligent. We should actually embrace those who do not agree with the majority, not expunge them.
  - 4y ago

mikkergp 4y ago

The question I want to know is how much of this is "bad" corruption (worse than you would find in a 350 million population relatively free democracy/republic) and how much of this is sausage making. Was there any reasonable way for this to go well, given the realities of living in a complex democracy where we don't agree on how it should have gone? Is it inevitable that societal trust breaks down just because societies are complex things? So far, I've been losing more sleep over the people losing trust than the people breaking trust.

dmix 4y ago

Another big one is how they purposefully lied about masks not working at first to protect supplies (or at least didn’t bother recommending them), then turned to everyone should use cloth masks, then cloth masks don’t work, and then masking kids all day long at school was pointless, etc. The whole back and forth, unquestioning compliance at all costs strategy, and purposeful deception just makes everyone exhausted, skeptical, and builds resentment. The worst part is that there isn’t any big plans in place to get supplies for better-than-N95 respirators for hospital workers. I have doubts even N95s will be widely available to the public by the next pandemic.

endgame 4y ago
http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.co... U.S. Surgeon-General on Twitter, 2022-02-29: > Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! > They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
- dmix 4y ago
  Classic
somehnguy 4y ago
N95 masks have been widely available to the public for a long time, via any department or store that carries home improvement supplies. They’re used for a variety of things. Like a year ago I walked into Home Depot and bought a 3 pack to wear while doing some sanding.

ausbah 4y ago

>CDC's ever changing guidelines this was much more of a presentation problem then anything. of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak, people's perception of science just isn't that. >liability-free, fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission of course you'll fast track a solution when you have a global pandemic? seems like a no brainer? and I don't recall transmission ever being promised, only a substantial lower chance of severe infection and death - which was a main goal to help reduce loads on hospitals? >labeling of media pushed medical hypothesis as "science" and any debate as heresy medical hypothesis are a part of science? and I think there's definitely room for debate on how vaccines, closures, masks, etc. could have been done - but when the debate is just over if masks or vaccines even work it's kinda silly to be wasting time talking with the "opposition" >the effortless militarization of common citizens to socially pressure and attack their neighbors into compliance I don't see the problem with this sort of social pressure in regards to a pandemic. it's not like being reported to the "covid gestapo" for not social distancing for something

nomel 4y ago
> of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak No. Science very very rarely changes. The confidence in the possible explanations is what changes. They communicated low confidence information with high confidence. The trust was destroyed with, what appeared to be, a concerted effort to silence those that accurately communicated the low confidence, or presented other equally possible, and far too often eventually-correct, understandings. I think this covers all the other points, above.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  "We're sorry millions of you are dying, but we got nothing for ya'" may be good science but horrific politics.
  - nomel 4y ago
    That’s, obviously, nonsense/hyperbole. I would suggest looking at the communication in Germany for a good example of science communication.

alphabettsy 4y ago

I think you’re leaving out the part where, for political or other reasons, there are and were groups motivated to sell distrust in American institutions as well as their political rivals. You cannot seriously have a debate about this mistrust without acknowledging the role of misinformation and motivated actors looking to sew mistrust. Remember when 5G causing Covid was trending? Or memes about how hot water in a netipot would kill it? Or that if you had a strange cold anytime in 2019 you probably already had it? Theories about microchips in the vaccine started spreading before the vaccine was announced. People becoming magnetic after the vaccine was trending.

slg 4y ago
>I think you’re leaving out the part where, for political reasons, there are and were groups motivated to sell distrust in American institutions as well as their political rivals. The conversations on HN about the lab leak hypothesis always leave this out. They often imply the politicization of covid came from scientists trying to protect themselves rather than from politicians. Maybe the lab leak theory is true, but you can't dismiss the fact that it first rose to public prominence because politicians pushed it as a way to shift the blame for the pandemic. Therefore the anti-lab leak argument was heavily political specifically because it was responding to an already politicized argument that had little evidence to support it.
- TrispusAttucks 4y ago
  Not true. Lab leak hypothesis came up early from NIH's own people. We have the emails. Government officials had these emails before "We the people" did so would have been first to sound the alarm publicly. https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/emails-reveal-suspected-covid-leaked-from-a-wuhan-lab-then-censored-themselves/ https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/emails-reveal-suspected-covid-... https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/HHRG-117-GO24-20211201-SD004.pdf https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/...
  - slg 4y ago
    I'm unclear what specifically in those links do you think contradicts what I said. The lab theory being discussed in scientific circles does not change the fact that politicians are the ones who pushed it into public discourse for their own gain and not because of any scientific pursuit of truth. Also side note, an opinion piece from the New York Post isn't exactly the most trustworthy source.

015a 4y ago

With the latest being: EUA approval, and the preemptive purchase of over 100M doses, of the new Pfizer/Moderna omicron vaccine after only being tested in mice. Sure, its similar to previous iterations which have undergone human testing. Sure, we have a good understanding of how they work, theoretically. The FDA isn't an entirely corrupt and incompetent organization. But without human efficacy and safety data, it feels beyond likely to me that acceptance rates among even the "silent majority" of people will be low. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorize-new-covid-boosters-data-tests-people-rcna45387 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorize-new... [2] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/biden-harris-administration-secures-105-million-doses-of-pfizers-latest-covid-19-vaccine-for-fall-vaccination-campaign.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/biden-harris-admin...

tinco 4y ago

The liability-free fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission greatly restored my belief that we might survive the next large event. It was rolled out quickly, and it actually greatly reduced mortality. Reducing transmission would've been epic, but we can't win them all. The CDC's ever changing guidelines were good, but their not admitting that at some point the had been wrong or worse were flat out lying did hurt societal trust a lot. The fact that social pressure on our neighbours and government recommendations failed to such an extent that we needed extra policing just to get people to keep to reasonable curfews sucked. I don't know where you pull the "effortless militarization of common citizens .. who attack" from, but a. that didn't happen, and b. it was the people who did not follow government recommendations and social pressure that were out there militarizing and attacking their neighbours. People are asking questions, that's how science works. But basing laws and regulations on established science and expert advice, that's how society is supposed to work. You can be angry about the state of science, or about the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The fact that we've been able to respond swiftly based on expert advice and on established science is a good thing. Maybe next time we'll make sure those experts and scientists have more competence and better alignment to our ethical values.

nradov 4y ago
Imposing mandatory curfews was never reasonable. That was never justified on an evidence-based medicine basis, and it violated the fundamental human right of free assembly. Those involved in policing such policies should be ashamed of themselves.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  Shame this gets downvotes. If we are following the science there should be ample reproducible research out there (conduced before the pandemic) showing that curfews had enough benefits to justify their extreme costs. But there is nothing. There is no research that lockdowns would be worth their cost either but here we are…
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

rtikulit 4y ago

Are you claiming that all authorities, organizations, businesses and experts acted (and are continuing to act) largely in bad faith?

namose 4y ago
It seems pretty clear to me that regarding the origin of the virus specifically, there has been bad-faith dismissal of the lab leak theory due to the politicization of GoF research.