“Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out | Hacker News Reader

“Follow the Science” Is a Cop-Out

thenewatlantis.com

"The “science” that politicians have claimed to follow rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses, assembling data, and asking new questions in an effort to teeter toward the truth. It is rather a void at the center of technocratic politics into which leaders cast their responsibility."

What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option?

> What would author suggest in March last year? What would be a better option?

    The technocratic apparatus might have been deployed toward a strategy of creative mitigation — say, mass manufacturing of N95 masks, test kits mailed to every American, testing at a large-enough scale to isolate only the actually infected instead of everyone. Instead, our leaders decided to indefinitely maintain crippling restrictions on individuals, schools, businesses, and social gatherings and take a Hail Mary pass at a vaccine, a gamble that paid off faster than we could have hoped and slower than we could bear.

The post office wanted to send everyone masks, but this was nixed by the admin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-scrapped-usp...

The USPS had the transportation infrastructure to do this... but it had no PPE inventory to distribute.

The previous administration had done nothing to maintain or replace the ample PPE inventory that the preceding administration had left it (in thoughtful response to SARS and H5N1).

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

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

> our leaders

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

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

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

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

"mass manufacturing of N95 masks"

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

Did we have any superior alternatives?

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

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

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

Erring on the side of caution was always an option. Advising people to wear masks early on instead of insisting that hand washing is the only thing necessary could have helped. Also encouraging exercise to mitigate the effects of the virus in case you do get it is something we still haven’t risen to.

Given the reaction when Michelle Obama suggested kids eat more vegetables, you can only guess how many heads would explode if EXERCISE was mentioned!

Fauci has mentioned eating a healthy diet. But most people consider their diets healthy so that doesn't help. Anyway, this was obviously a point glossed over by the pro maskers.

Fauci is a mess honestly. He's been all over the map and revealed he's in the business of noble lies in the interest of policy objectives - which only backfires and erodes public trust.

Were the establishment smart, they'd have no problem with vaccination hesitancy by saying that after vaccination you can resume normal life and ditch the masks. Instead it's been the outrageous message of "nothing will change."

You only have to see how the establishment has handled the obesity epidemic in the US to see whether any of their supposed intelligence and expertise accomplishes anything.

Ventilation and filtration are more important than either of those efforts because they require zero compliance from the public. No one walks into Walmart and demands the blower fans on the air filter be turned off.

These are not alternatives to basing policies on scientific knowledge, they are either alternatives - chosen with the benefit of hindsight - to some of the specific policies followed for a time, or some additional science-informed actions that could be taken.

Human history has plenty of experience of what happens in epidemics when the response is not informed by science, and we do not need any more of that.

Furthermore, not erring on the side of caution is more frequently encouraged among those who are dismissive of the idea of using science to guide policy.

We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask could actually make you more likely to catch the virus somehow, which there was no evidence of.

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

Like I said, you are proposing alternative science-based policies, which does not support the thesis of the article.

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

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

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

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

Is not the purpose of HN to post links in order to spur conversation? If we only regurgitated what the article said all the time there would be no iteration of ideas.

I agree, and, through this discussion, I see that you have a view that is distinct from that of the authors. I also agree that claiming masks were ineffective for the general public was a significant failure of science-based policy (it reminds me of the position that women could not catch HIV, which was ultimately a far more devastating failure of this sort.)

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

  basic physics to be more precise

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

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

> It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net.

Yes, but given the choice of there being a volleyball net between you and a BB gun shooter and there just being air, which do you choose?

That would have been a good reason to suggest wearing masks and also goggles. Personally I was wearing goggles in the beginning for that reason and still make sure to wear glasses since there is some evidence that they can help too. One wrong is still better than two wrongs.

It's not about either the particle or the lipid envelope. It's about the water particles containing the viruses. They get emitted when you breathe, and they are several orders of magnitude larger. The virus doesn't float around on its own.

The eyes are less of a problem because you don't breathe through your eyes. Only a limited amount of air contacts them, and no air is emitted from them.

Masks are at least as important for protecting others as for protecting yourself. They filter large volumes of air. Eye protection is useful if you're faced with people breathing directly in your face all day, but they're less important for people who can socially distance.

Indeed, people (especially politicians) seem really afraid to simply say "we don't know". Rather appeal to science as an authority that everyone agrees on. Especially when it comes to large topics like climate-change or pandemics, scientists dedicate their lives to learn about a small part; yet somehow all scientists are in agreement on whatever someone posted on social media or what a politician wants to do.

I feel like if you paid close attention you heard / understood that this was a new virus and nobody was sure of much.

"The Science" is the new state-sponsored oppressive religion.

The parallels write themselves - only a few are worthy to approach "The Science", and we must trust that their interpretation of the mysterious writings is correct. As well as that, we must obey, for the good of all, or face public ridicule and be shunned as dangerous.

> The “science” that politicians have claimed to follow rarely resembles the centuries-old process of making informed guesses, testing hypotheses, assembling data, and asking new questions in an effort to teeter toward the truth.

Speaking to this in the broadest context... Even with that I wish we would acknowledge that the science can only give us a certain amount of knowledge. It does not give us the wisdom to know how to make right decisions as that involves evaluating competing values that science cannot address. Ultimately, the values of those in leadership (and to some extent the values of the majority in democracies) dominate the values of other people and can discriminate against (or even oppress) those who are not in power.

Let's start with following the scientists, rather than following the reporters' priorities and interpretations of the scientists.

It's strange to me that several references to Jackson, Adams, and DeBlasio's non response during the start of 2020 aren't paired with a similarly withering criticism of the then-chief executive who didn't even encourage mask wearing and pushed reopenings that we know are dangerous for aerosol spread, namely full capacity indoors restaurants and bars.

I don't dispute some restrictions are silly - closing playgrounds outside comes to mind, but they were reopened in my city once it became clear aerosol spread maskless indoors is far more dangerous than fomite transmission or masked aersosol transmission outdoors. Ultimately that is following the science.

It's strange to me...

Not that strange. This is an article in an anti-science publication written by the editor of a right-wing paper.

The author intentionally focuses on federalism to avoid pointing any blame toward the chief executive you mentioned. It’s not an intellectually honest piece.

> In January 2020, when the first cases of what would later be dubbed Covid-19 were discovered on American soil, state and city governments were charged with managing the crisis before it was too late. But at precisely the time for acting, when the virus was here but had not yet spread widely, nearly every political institution in America that bore responsibility — including various bureaus of public health — claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to do anything. And when it was clear that they had waited too long, they denied responsibility and placed the blame elsewhere.

This article manages to blame any and every politician from the other party, while somehow not once mentioning the single politician most responsible for ignoring the crisis, the one that set the tone for the entire country and downplayed the risk of the virus even months after it was obvious.

The author wants to write an article about how impactful the virus was, how terrible the politicians were and yet tries to find a way to do so, and won't acknowledge the source of the problem?

How in the world is this even upvoted on HN? It's pure partisan drivel.

Unfortunately I think I'm coming to an understanding of the state of current politics. At this point, it seems clear one party is in consistent denial denial of reality and absolution of any and all responsibility of their party. No the other party isn't innocent, but the disparity is shocking.

It began with denying where a president was born, then continued into belief of QAnon conspiracy, denial of covid, and now denial of any responsibility for that denial, next denial of vote results. It's legitimately concerning.

The current media landscape plays a large part in this - creating these reality distortion fields and allowing people to remain in them for everything. 20 years ago I could disagree with people on what's most important, what's best to do, prioritization, but we agreed on basic facts. But now any inconvenient fact is just summarily dismissed as false and ignored. This is not sustainable.

But there are too many people in positions of power who would lose it if that happened, and too many people that would have to face uncomfortable truths that they were duped. Two things that psychologically and from human nature rarely happen.

30% of the party believes in the core of QAnon. How do you even have a functioning country with that?

https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/nearly-30-percent-of...

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

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

Makes the argument that politicians dropped the ball. Mentions Cuomo and di Blasio by name, but oddly omits to mention deSantis, Abbott, any other conservative governors, nor the the politician best equipped to address the crisis: Trump.

Not that Abbot and deSantis done anything particularly smart wrt to COVID, but at the very least they both avoided doing something deadly stupid like sending COVID patients to nursing homes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com