some old articles about the pandemic have not aged well

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
Feeling a bit despairing I found myself googling "when will the pandemic end". Didn't find anything cheering, but did turn up some old articles that really haven't aged well.

e.g.

How will the COVID-19 pandemic end? A virologist explains


1611600619466.png

"We may be approaching a saturation point in terms of coronavirus infections in some of the worst-hit countries."....said this virolologist, back last April.

Going on to say

"...in the countries that are most affected, like Italy and Spain - there will be saturation, because according to predictions, up to 40% percent of the Spanish and 26% of the Italian population are or have been infected already. "

To me that just seems to demonstrate that you can find an "expert" to say whatever you want to hear. This sort of thing makes one cynical about claims to 'expert status' in general. Am I missing something here?
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
901
136
I think his statement is predicated on the phrasing "according to predictions." I don't know what the basis it was back then that was estimating 40% of Spanish citizens were infected, I would like to see where that was made. Nonetheless, the rest of the statements are fairly reasonable. He was asked how the pandemic will end. He stated that it will likely become a seasonal coronavirus, and if a country reaches saturation (aka herd immunity) fewer cases will occur.

If you want to criticize those predictions of 40%, that's certainly fair game. We didn't really have any antibody testing back then, so nobody could state using antibodies how many people in any country or area was already exposed to the virus at that moment in time.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
I think his statement is predicated on the phrasing "according to predictions." I don't know what the basis it was back then that was estimating 40% of Spanish citizens were infected, I would like to see where that was made. Nonetheless, the rest of the statements are fairly reasonable. He was asked how the pandemic will end. He stated that it will likely become a seasonal coronavirus, and if a country reaches saturation (aka herd immunity) fewer cases will occur.

If you want to criticize those predictions of 40%, that's certainly fair game. We didn't really have any antibody testing back then, so nobody could state using antibodies how many people in any country or area was already exposed to the virus at that moment in time.

Yes, the bit about it 'becoming endemic/seasonal' isn't the embarrassingly-wrong bit (depressing though it is to think variants on this may be with us like flu in perpetuity, regularly culling the elderly and the vulnerable - perhaps that's just how it will be). The glaringly-wrong part is the dubious assumption as to how close Spain (and Italy) were to 'herd immunity via infection', But that is pretty much in accord what has been pushed by anti-lockdown people since the start. So it's hard not to see it as motivated-reasoning coming from people with an agenda.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
Anyway, I was hoping to find something more cheering/encouraging than that. Instead it just makes me more skeptical about any more-current optimistic prediction I might find.
 

Leymenaide

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
749
364
136
This is what the far right has been saying all along. Keep them working , nothing wrong here, herd immunity is the answer. No shut downs , no masks, a vaccine will solve all the problems,

Look at your source: World Economic Forum
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyking and Leeea

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,799
136
Feeling a bit despairing I found myself googling "when will the pandemic end". Didn't find anything cheering, but did turn up some old articles that really haven't aged well.

e.g.

How will the COVID-19 pandemic end? A virologist explains


View attachment 38571

"We may be approaching a saturation point in terms of coronavirus infections in some of the worst-hit countries."....said this virolologist, back last April.

Going on to say

"...in the countries that are most affected, like Italy and Spain - there will be saturation, because according to predictions, up to 40% percent of the Spanish and 26% of the Italian population are or have been infected already. "

To me that just seems to demonstrate that you can find an "expert" to say whatever you want to hear. This sort of thing makes one cynical about claims to 'expert status' in general. Am I missing something here?

The "may" is rather important.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been frustrating in no small part because scientists have had to work with limited and constantly evolving data. It's like learning to drive by taking the wheel while you're on the highway — you have to figure it out as you go along, and will probably discover that things were a lot more complex than you imagined early on.

The virologist wasn't misguided, but was going on the extremely limited information we had back in April. We had much less data on how the virus spread, how it would evolve, and when vaccines would be available. I would say that this expert didn't seem to remember what happened with the Spanish Flu (which had a second wave much worse than the first), but that's the only major complaint I have at the moment.

That on-the-go research can be puzzling to the general public. We're used to scientists having the luxury of developing a reasonably complete explanation over the course of months or years. They give you all the answers in one shot. With COVID-19, they don't have that option — the public needs answers now, and some kind of modelling is necessary to help inform policy even if it's likely to change.

To be fair, there was also an "it can't really be that bad, can it?" optimism that pervaded the collective consciousness, even in April. I still remember many people thinking we would be completely back to normal by the summer. No one wanted to admit that a global pandemic would only end once billions of people were vaccinated; they just hoped the virus would somehow burn itself out.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,449
9,834
136
Early on there were a lot of people that abused the hell out of statistics to "prove" far more people had gotten than had. There is a famous professor at Stanford that wrote a real BS article on Statnews back in March. Completely abused the hell out of statistics. What's funny is he made a name for himself destroying other people's bad statistics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyking and pmv

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
This is what the far right has been saying all along. Keep them working , nothing wrong here, herd immunity is the answer. No shut downs , no masks, a vaccine will solve all the problems,

Look at your source: World Economic Forum


Not sure I'd call the WEF 'the far right'. But I'd certainly call it part of 'the right'. The Far Right would surely be more neo-Nazi rather than corporate and globalist?

In fact seems to me the Far Right tends to produce conspiracy theories about bodies like the WEF. The two feed off each other. "The Great Reset" sounds like an update on "The New World Order".
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
Distrust of experts has been given a bad name by being a longstanding cultural trait of the US right, that has historically shown a contempt for any sort of expert or professional knowledge. But maybe the right shouldn't have a monopoly on distrust of experts. There's something amiss with the whole culture of 'expertise' in a society riven with power-differentials (especially those of class, a category that "expertise" is completely intertwined with) and people pursuing agendas.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
What it really comes down to is that this virus is only about a year old. Back in April we knew next to nothing about it. We still don't know much about it and the long term effects it is going to have. Science takes time. Long term studies are the only real way to learn about this thing, and it just has not been around long enough to have done that yet. Until then we are working with very small fluctuations in small data sets. It is bound to have large margins of error.
The real answer here is that no one knows when this will end, and the real truth is that it might not. This might become a seasonal thing, and our society might just have to adapt.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
What it really comes down to is that this virus is only about a year old. Back in April we knew next to nothing about it. We still don't know much about it and the long term effects it is going to have. Science takes time. Long term studies are the only real way to learn about this thing, and it just has not been around long enough to have done that yet. Until then we are working with very small fluctuations in small data sets. It is bound to have large margins of error.
The real answer here is that no one knows when this will end, and the real truth is that it might not. This might become a seasonal thing, and our society might just have to adapt.

Well, that's true, but it still seems to me some 'experts' tended to offer their verdicts prematurely and with excessive confidence, given how limited their knowledge actually was. More honesty about that lack of knowledge would probably have been a good thing. Experts ought to be more prepared to say when they just don't know something. (And, again, I'm not disputing the possibility that this may never entirely go away, just the excessive optimism about how close we were to 'saturation' with the current pandemic).
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Well, that's true, but it still seems to me some 'experts' tended to offer their verdicts prematurely and with excessive confidence, given how limited their knowledge actually was. More honesty about that lack of knowledge would probably have been a good thing. Experts ought to be more prepared to say when they just don't know something. (And, again, I'm not disputing the possibility that this may never entirely go away, just the excessive optimism about how close we were to 'saturation' with the current pandemic).
I agree, but I think the problem here is that news shows don't invite the person on air that is going to say 'We don't know'. They invite the person with a strong statement.
The real problem here is that we reward them for doing so. Both the scientist and the news show. To some there is no incentive to tell us the truth when we will pay more for a comfortable lie.

If the news had any integrity they would have asked those 'experts' if their information was peer reviewed, and if so where. But, as I said, that would have undercut the story they were trying to tell. Because that is what the news has become, stories they are selling to us. And they will continue to do so as long as we are just gullible enough to keep buying them.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas and pmv

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,567
2,626
136
The intellectual elite have been quietly been extremely negligent bordering on intentionally destructive in not fostering the sufficient amount of fear of this virus, starting with the WHO itself, a organization captured by China's money, dragging their feet at declaring the pandemic a proper pandemic.

Despite there being knowledge that people were being welded into residences in China, no one really bothered to emphasize that point.

And for experts well versed math, they should understand what the fuck a "lag" is. No results does not entail nonexistence. Some policy effects in the field of economics take months to show up in the data points.

Every time another event occurs that can be a increase in deaths and suffering, they are quick to choose to issue notices that state it's not different from the baseline. The most recent being the new UK strain being more contagious but not more deadly. Now, it's appearing to be more deadly.

Now there will be mass vaccination sites. I cannot start to go with how stupid that is, especially since the first does is not that effective.

If the scientists cared for safety, they'd issue the message "be paranoid of germs, we don't know yet but this could devastate you and your family, so until we get the data, take extra precautions". But nope, their approach is possible a mixture of intellectual self-satisfaction, and possibly wanting to see some people dead because they see people as a toxic drain on resources and the environment.
Instead it's, "we don't know yet, but it seems not more dangerous than comparable X, like the flu, or the original strain, or whatever the next thing is down the line". Then two weeks later, "Oh, it seems like it is more dangerous than we thought, sorry".
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,378
7,443
136
Feeling a bit despairing I found myself googling "when will the pandemic end". Didn't find anything cheering, but did turn up some old articles that really haven't aged well.

e.g.

How will the COVID-19 pandemic end? A virologist explains

Politics and News Articles discussing science are rarely, themselves, scientific. Thus... the main authority we have on such matters, to hear and learn of them, are rarely authoritative at all. Leading to widespread misinformation and mistrust in science. Fuel for the whack-a-doodles.

I think the idea of "a second wave" was popular from the beginning, and I imagine was the prevailing thought. That the second winter would be the worst, as it was in 1918.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
901
136
The intellectual elite have been quietly been extremely negligent bordering on intentionally destructive in not fostering the sufficient amount of fear of this virus, starting with the WHO itself, a organization captured by China's money, dragging their feet at declaring the pandemic a proper pandemic.

Despite there being knowledge that people were being welded into residences in China, no one really bothered to emphasize that point.

And for experts well versed math, they should understand what the fuck a "lag" is. No results does not entail nonexistence. Some policy effects in the field of economics take months to show up in the data points.

Every time another event occurs that can be a increase in deaths and suffering, they are quick to choose to issue notices that state it's not different from the baseline. The most recent being the new UK strain being more contagious but not more deadly. Now, it's appearing to be more deadly.

Now there will be mass vaccination sites. I cannot start to go with how stupid that is, especially since the first does is not that effective.

If the scientists cared for safety, they'd issue the message "be paranoid of germs, we don't know yet but this could devastate you and your family, so until we get the data, take extra precautions". But nope, their approach is possible a mixture of intellectual self-satisfaction, and possibly wanting to see some people dead because they see people as a toxic drain on resources and the environment.
Instead it's, "we don't know yet, but it seems not more dangerous than comparable X, like the flu, or the original strain, or whatever the next thing is down the line". Then two weeks later, "Oh, it seems like it is more dangerous than we thought, sorry".

Thanks for illustrating the anti-intellectualism that this pandemic has further revealed with your post. The New Yorker illustrates your mindset perfectly:

1611772207209.png

Since vaccination centers have been open for well over a month now with many handling thousands of individuals per day, can you share with us the hundreds of outbreaks that have occurred at these vaccination sites? What prominent scientific leaders, say Anthony Fauci, has advocated that the virus is "not more dangerous" than the flu?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pmv

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
Thanks for illustrating the anti-intellectualism that this pandemic has further revealed with your post. The New Yorker illustrates your mindset perfectly:

View attachment 38664

The thing is, though I doubt I agree with TornMind about this or most things, I really waver back-and-forth on the general topic of 'experts'. I struggle with my own inconsistency. Some experts I'd defend, others I don't myself trust.

Sometimes, it seems to me, anti-intellectualism, or at least anti-credentialism, is justified. People who have spent a lot of time being educated can overestimate how much they know because they look at it relative to what an individual can learn, and how much effort it takes to do so, not relative to what there potentially is to be known. You might have studied for years and know almost everything about a discpline, but the entire discipline might only know a limited amount about the world.

"Expertise" - deciding who has it and how far it should be relied upon - seems like a complicated thing. It's a political-economic phenomenon, not a simple, objective, easily-identified thing. Which is a convoluted way of agreeing with what Smogzinn was saying above, I guess.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
901
136
The thing is, though I doubt I agree with TornMind about this or most things, I really waver back-and-forth on the general topic of 'experts'. I struggle with my own inconsistency. Some experts I'd defend, others I don't myself trust.

Sometimes, it seems to me, anti-intellectualism, or at least anti-credentialism, is justified. People who have spent a lot of time being educated can overestimate how much they know because they look at it relative to what an individual can learn, and how much effort it takes to do so, not relative to what there potentially is to be known. You might have studied for years and know almost everything about a discpline, but the entire discipline might only know a limited amount about the world.

"Expertise" - deciding who has it and how far it should be relied upon - seems like a complicated thing. It's a political-economic phenomenon, not a simple, objective, easily-identified thing. Which is a convoluted way of agreeing with what Smogzinn was saying above, I guess.
I think there's a fundamental difference how to judge experts in different fields. People who claim to be experts in fields, for example, like politics, history, or investments that there is a blurred line between subjective and objective analysis (unless they say outright false statements like the sky is red, not blue). Look at people like Shelby Foote, who many see as the ultimate expert on the Civil War based on his involvement with the Ken Burns series. Many people don't realize is that he's very much a "Lost Causer" as he tends to overplay certain facts while dismissing others. There's a lot of interpretation in these fields that lends itself to offering many different viewpoints that are still grounded on some framework of evidence.

However, when talking about experts in science, mathematics, engineering, these fields are much more objective and concrete in conclusions. If you don't have evidence behind a statement, then your position is unjustified, and trying to extrapolate, correlate, or estimate will be called out as such. If people want to know if the COVID-19 vaccines are effective, the data is available and can be scrutinized by anyone. It would take tremendous amount of manipulation and ethical misconduct to massage the data in order to avoid concluding that the vaccines are ~95% effective. A randomized controlled trial is an incredibly powerful way to understand human health, but analogous testing methodologies aren't available in other fields. So I think that's why its difficult to judge some "experts," but its much easier in a field like infectious diseases and medicine.

Its also why the airline pilot cartoon is perfect. Would anybody trust anyone other than a pilot to land a plane? But then why do people suddenly distrust 100's of infectious disease experts when it comes to COVID-19?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
I think there's a fundamental difference how to judge experts in different fields. People who claim to be experts in fields, for example, like politics, history, or investments that there is a blurred line between subjective and objective analysis (unless they say outright false statements like the sky is red, not blue). Look at people like Shelby Foote, who many see as the ultimate expert on the Civil War based on his involvement with the Ken Burns series. Many people don't realize is that he's very much a "Lost Causer" as he tends to overplay certain facts while dismissing others. There's a lot of interpretation in these fields that lends itself to offering many different viewpoints that are still grounded on some framework of evidence.

However, when talking about experts in science, mathematics, engineering, these fields are much more objective and concrete in conclusions. If you don't have evidence behind a statement, then your position is unjustified, and trying to extrapolate, correlate, or estimate will be called out as such. If people want to know if the COVID-19 vaccines are effective, the data is available and can be scrutinized by anyone. It would take tremendous amount of manipulation and ethical misconduct to massage the data in order to avoid concluding that the vaccines are ~95% effective. A randomized controlled trial is an incredibly powerful way to understand human health, but analogous testing methodologies aren't available in other fields. So I think that's why its difficult to judge some "experts," but its much easier in a field like infectious diseases and medicine.

Its also why the airline pilot cartoon is perfect. Would anybody trust anyone other than a pilot to land a plane? But then why do people suddenly distrust 100's of infectious disease experts when it comes to COVID-19?
While I agree with your point pretty strongly I do think that some messaging early on from experts was very damaging to public trust, specifically their messaging on mask wearing.

As far as I can tell they knew masks were effective at limiting the spread of COVID but because the shortage was so acute misled the public and said there was no need to wear one unless you were sick. If people want the public to trust them they have to be honest with the public.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,326
10,230
136
I think there's a fundamental difference how to judge experts in different fields. People who claim to be experts in fields, for example, like politics, history, or investments that there is a blurred line between subjective and objective analysis (unless they say outright false statements like the sky is red, not blue). Look at people like Shelby Foote, who many see as the ultimate expert on the Civil War based on his involvement with the Ken Burns series. Many people don't realize is that he's very much a "Lost Causer" as he tends to overplay certain facts while dismissing others. There's a lot of interpretation in these fields that lends itself to offering many different viewpoints that are still grounded on some framework of evidence.

However, when talking about experts in science, mathematics, engineering, these fields are much more objective and concrete in conclusions. If you don't have evidence behind a statement, then your position is unjustified, and trying to extrapolate, correlate, or estimate will be called out as such. If people want to know if the COVID-19 vaccines are effective, the data is available and can be scrutinized by anyone. It would take tremendous amount of manipulation and ethical misconduct to massage the data in order to avoid concluding that the vaccines are ~95% effective. A randomized controlled trial is an incredibly powerful way to understand human health, but analogous testing methodologies aren't available in other fields. So I think that's why its difficult to judge some "experts," but its much easier in a field like infectious diseases and medicine.

Its also why the airline pilot cartoon is perfect. Would anybody trust anyone other than a pilot to land a plane? But then why do people suddenly distrust 100's of infectious disease experts when it comes to COVID-19?
Look at their actual work history.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
901
136
While I agree with your point pretty strongly I do think that some messaging early on from experts was very damaging to public trust, specifically their messaging on mask wearing.

As far as I can tell they knew masks were effective at limiting the spread of COVID but because the shortage was so acute misled the public and said there was no need to wear one unless you were sick. If people want the public to trust them they have to be honest with the public.

I don't really agree with description either as the data that existed for and against general public mask wearing in March was mixed. For example, one study that has been circulated by the Qanon groups is actually something that was weighed heavily amongst the Infectious Disease crowd, this study found that cloth masks increased the risk of influenza by 13-fold! Other studies found very little protection of cloth masks against droplets. A review of the data behind cloth masks showed that most of the scientific data came out of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, and virtually nothing had been published since (other than the aforementioned studies). Similar studies regarding other masks showed that masks had no effect in a pediatric hospital against routine respiratory viruses and a randomized controlled trial failed to show a benefit of masking, but this might have been to the study being underpowered. Implementation of masking in households for influenza led to high rates of non-compliance, rendering the interventions to be relatively ineffective. Of course this is one side of the coin and isn't meant to be a treatise on the effectiveness of masking, as there were many other studies showing the benefit of surgical masks and especially for N95 masks, and was the reason hospitals were hoarding them as much as possible. But the mask shortage in March and April was very real, and N95's were being stolen. There was no way surgical/procedural masks were going to be circulated to the general public at the time, so the only option was the cloth masks. And the above studies were several cautious tales that led to the recommendations in March/April.

Of course, the data now suggests otherwise, but 9 months ago, I can show you some of the listserv emails, many "experts" were against the idea of cloth masks based on the first study I mentioned.

So what would you choose to believe at the time? 0 studies showing a benefit of cloth masks, or one study showing it actually increased the risk? Perhaps that study fits with the overall title of this thread of some old articles that didn't age well. But that's what everyone had to make a decision back then. It was a wrong decision, nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,969
7,886
136
I think there's a fundamental difference how to judge experts in different fields. People who claim to be experts in fields, for example, like politics, history, or investments that there is a blurred line between subjective and objective analysis (unless they say outright false statements like the sky is red, not blue). Look at people like Shelby Foote, who many see as the ultimate expert on the Civil War based on his involvement with the Ken Burns series. Many people don't realize is that he's very much a "Lost Causer" as he tends to overplay certain facts while dismissing others. There's a lot of interpretation in these fields that lends itself to offering many different viewpoints that are still grounded on some framework of evidence.

However, when talking about experts in science, mathematics, engineering, these fields are much more objective and concrete in conclusions. If you don't have evidence behind a statement, then your position is unjustified, and trying to extrapolate, correlate, or estimate will be called out as such. If people want to know if the COVID-19 vaccines are effective, the data is available and can be scrutinized by anyone. It would take tremendous amount of manipulation and ethical misconduct to massage the data in order to avoid concluding that the vaccines are ~95% effective. A randomized controlled trial is an incredibly powerful way to understand human health, but analogous testing methodologies aren't available in other fields. So I think that's why its difficult to judge some "experts," but its much easier in a field like infectious diseases and medicine.

Its also why the airline pilot cartoon is perfect. Would anybody trust anyone other than a pilot to land a plane? But then why do people suddenly distrust 100's of infectious disease experts when it comes to COVID-19?

I more-or-less agree, except I'm not sure I'd draw the line between different types of field in the same place. Not all 'sciences' are the same. For example, I have no problem accepting the expertise of climate scientists, but I'm more sceptical about the medical field. As I understand it, the two scientific disciplines with the poorest 'reproducibility' rates are psychology and medicine. Medicine is not physics, yet alone aircraft piloting, seems to me it's a bit further along the spectrum towards history when it comes to potential biases.

I really want to give salient examples of the problem of trusting 'experts' when it comes to medical issues, but I find it means saying too much about either my own or other people's medical problems, so don't feel I can do it! The basic problem is medical experts often strongly disagree, and its not hard to think of reasons why ideas might become commonplace in medicine for political reasons (e.g. underestimating the extent to which a disease might be present in a country rather than being only a problem of 'foreigners'), almost as much as in history.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
I don't really agree with description either as the data that existed for and against general public mask wearing in March was mixed. For example, one study that has been circulated by the Qanon groups is actually something that was weighed heavily amongst the Infectious Disease crowd, this study found that cloth masks increased the risk of influenza by 13-fold! Other studies found very little protection of cloth masks against droplets. A review of the data behind cloth masks showed that most of the scientific data came out of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, and virtually nothing had been published since (other than the aforementioned studies). Similar studies regarding other masks showed that masks had no effect in a pediatric hospital against routine respiratory viruses and a randomized controlled trial failed to show a benefit of masking, but this might have been to the study being underpowered. Implementation of masking in households for influenza led to high rates of non-compliance, rendering the interventions to be relatively ineffective. Of course this is one side of the coin and isn't meant to be a treatise on the effectiveness of masking, as there were many other studies showing the benefit of surgical masks and especially for N95 masks, and was the reason hospitals were hoarding them as much as possible. But the mask shortage in March and April was very real, and N95's were being stolen. There was no way surgical/procedural masks were going to be circulated to the general public at the time, so the only option was the cloth masks. And the above studies were several cautious tales that led to the recommendations in March/April.

Of course, the data now suggests otherwise, but 9 months ago, I can show you some of the listserv emails, many "experts" were against the idea of cloth masks based on the first study I mentioned.

So what would you choose to believe at the time? 0 studies showing a benefit of cloth masks, or one study showing it actually increased the risk? Perhaps that study fits with the overall title of this thread of some old articles that didn't age well. But that's what everyone had to make a decision back then. It was a wrong decision, nonetheless.
That’s a very fair argument for ambiguity as to the wearing of cloth masks, but I think the messaging that went out was to not wear masks precisely to preserve the surgical and N95 masks that we knew to be effective.

I get the idea that PPE was being stolen and how it was important to preserve it for health care workers, but I think it would have been better to level with people then come across with a ‘don’t worry about wearing these’ stands.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
901
136
I more-or-less agree, except I'm not sure I'd draw the line between different types of field in the same place. Not all 'sciences' are the same. For example, I have no problem accepting the expertise of climate scientists, but I'm more sceptical about the medical field. As I understand it, the two scientific disciplines with the poorest 'reproducibility' rates are psychology and medicine. Medicine is not physics, yet alone aircraft piloting, seems to me it's a bit further along the spectrum towards history when it comes to potential biases.

I really want to give salient examples of the problem of trusting 'experts' when it comes to medical issues, but I find it means saying too much about either my own or other people's medical problems, so don't feel I can do it! The basic problem is medical experts often strongly disagree, and its not hard to think of reasons why ideas might become commonplace in medicine for political reasons (e.g. underestimating the extent to which a disease might be present in a country rather than being only a problem of 'foreigners'), almost as much as in history.
I think the other thing that has to be considered is that some scientific fields are very heterogenous, unconnected, and understudied/young. But this is different than something that is studied but becomes very subjective, like judging the contributors to a specific historical event. How many historians is needed to scrutinize the writings of all the major players in establishing the Confederacy? I would wager that topic has been well studied. Many sciences on the other hand has scientific results that can be scrutinized, replicated, and judged from a nearly objective viewpoint. But this takes time and energy.

Look at something like multiple sclerosis. Its been recognized as a disease for over a century, but why it happens nobody knows. How to diagnose it? There isn't a great test. How to treat it? There's only a few treatments that aren't very effective. On the flip side, look what has happened with research into HIV. It might be one of the better success stories in medicine. After 4 decades of research, billions of dollars and millions of researchers and study subjects where we have progressed. We went from not even knowing the cause of AIDS in the 70's/80's into discovering a novel retrovirus, being able to sequence the genome, having diagnostic tests that can tell us if someone is infected within 14 days of exposure, developing multiple different treatments that now enable HIV infected people to have a similar lifespan to those who are uninfected. The next major step is discovering a vaccine to prevent transmission, and we stand a chance of eradicating this virus from human health.

But this was only possible because of the investment made into understanding HIV, something that cannot be said for much of medicine. Medical research takes hundreds to thousands of humans to participate in a study, a research team, hundreds to over a million dollars and years of follow-up and analysis. The same cannot be said for other fields. The Double Slit Experiment could be studied and replicate hundreds of times over since its inception nearly a century ago. These limitations make that field somewhat slower to develop robust data behind. Do vaccines cause autism? We have nearly 20 years of research covering millions of children now saying no. But do cloth masks prevent respiratory infections? In the same 20 years, there was only one study conducted of 1600 health-care workers pre-pandemic.

It may surprise you, but it is acceptable that 20% of medical research studies will fail to show a difference because there are insufficient number of study subjects, and 5% of research studies will conclude there is a difference when there isn't a difference. These are different acceptable standards than say physics where the Double Slit Experiment can be run hundreds of times. There's only so many humans to test, so many years to follow-up with them, and so many researchers to conduct the research. This is part of the reason that some medical researchers and statisticians wish to change these standards so there's less conflicting data.

But in the end, I think much of science is controversial because of the science behind it isn't well studied to an acceptable standard. It sounds like you have other experiences, and there are certainly areas that are have issues beyond just being understudied. But do vaccines cause Autism? That's been studied, and anyone that would be labeled as an expert would be hard to answer that question with anything other than a "no, they do not. Let me show you the tens of studies and millions of children that have been studied that didn't show a connection."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
901
136
That’s a very fair argument for ambiguity as to the wearing of cloth masks, but I think the messaging that went out was to not wear masks precisely to preserve the surgical and N95 masks that we knew to be effective.

I get the idea that PPE was being stolen and how it was important to preserve it for health care workers, but I think it would have been better to level with people then come across with a ‘don’t worry about wearing these’ stands.

I guess which people were you following? I was very struck by this statement by the Surgeon General (now since deleted, do you remember this one? It really affected how I was interpreting the mask debate at the time:

"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!"


He even double-downed here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips

Even other non-medical governmental officials had similar statements including Azar:

I would also rewatch the Fauci interview with 60 Minutes that many people like to cite about his comments about mask wearing then. He clearly outlines his concerns about using masks that it isn't just a supply issue:


I'm sure he would love to take back those comments, but he clearly described that the supply was part of the issue and that masks may not be offering the protection that people think they may be getting and contaminating themselves. I think that was a consistent argument being made in addition to the supply issue. They were far more concerned about hospitalized COVID-19 patients transmitting it. Remember, nobody knew the extent of asymptomatic infection at the time, so it was presumed only the sick was transmitting. Therefore, put masks on those who are being exposed, while don't worry about people walking around with COVID-19 and spreading it because this isn't a major route the virus is transmitted. Turns out to be a very wrong assumption.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
I guess which people were you following? I was very struck by this statement by the Surgeon General (now since deleted, do you remember this one? It really affected how I was interpreting the mask debate at the time:

"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!"


He even double-downed here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips

Even other non-medical governmental officials had similar statements including Azar:

I would also rewatch the Fauci interview with 60 Minutes that many people like to cite about his comments about mask wearing then. He clearly outlines his concerns about using masks that it isn't just a supply issue:


I'm sure he would love to take back those comments, but he clearly described that the supply was part of the issue and that masks may not be offering the protection that people think they may be getting and contaminating themselves. I think that was a consistent argument being made in addition to the supply issue. They were far more concerned about hospitalized COVID-19 patients transmitting it. Remember, nobody knew the extent of asymptomatic infection at the time, so it was presumed only the sick was transmitting. Therefore, put masks on those who are being exposed, while don't worry about people walking around with COVID-19 and spreading it because this isn't a major route the virus is transmitted. Turns out to be a very wrong assumption.
That’s pretty inconsistent messaging to me.

‘masks aren’t effective but if you buy them then our health care workers can’t get them.’

I get how there’s some nuance there but I think it would have been better to say that surgical masks and N95s were effective for the general public but we just couldn’t spare them.