Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

This may come to a shock to the HN audience who thinks technical expertise is all you need, but public relations is really hard when you’re in a crisis.

Yes, the CDC has stumbled multiple times and when you do that during a public health crisis it destroys confidence, but delivering a scientific message in an environment where new data is constantly streaming in is very hard.

View on HN

The amount of mis- and dis-information only makes that harder. When so many actors are actively working to undermine your message.

So? What’s your solution? Silence dissenting voices?

I’ve noticed HN seems to entirely ignore the human aspect. Doctors understand it.

Tell all your type 2 diabetes patients if they dont take their medicine they’ll lose their legs. And guess what? 20% will lose their legs.

People aren’t robots. People are emotional. People aren’t always logical. People do the opposite. Why? Just because.

That’s the hand you’re dealt. Find a solution.

At times it seemed to me that repeating stale guidance was the only acceptable messaging, and I found it to be thin data with a somewhat chilling effect. Other influences abounded, but the effective knowledge transfer was disappointing in my view. There are other numbers to know than today's death record and the same mask reminder.

The author fell back on this excuse, too, but no. The existence of "bad actors" may confuse the public, but it should not distract experts from issuing clear guidance.

Yup. The CDC has basically taken the approach “The public is confused? Clearly the public is at fault, not us.”

> but delivering a scientific message in an environment where new data is constantly streaming in is very hard

In this case, they've done the opposite - withheld the "scientific" message - on multiple occasions. The latest being about vaccinated people being able to spread the virus. That's not hard - that's straight up malicious.

It's worth noting that once that information was out, nearly every headline was misleading and half the readers got the wrong message[0].

Maybe the CDC could've gotten ahead of this by reporting clearly and honestly about the actual situation, but I wouldn't count on responsible reporting just because the information was responsibly handed out to journalists / the publications who desperately need people to click on their headlines.

[0] https://www.mediaite.com/news/nbc-news-ny-times-washington-p...

They could just choose to stop "changing their minds" so often and just speak less and "more decisively."

Absolutely not, especially as information changes. Is it so hard to understand that new information should change the message? That varying the message could reach people the old message did not?

Their job is not to be decisive, it is to inform, and an incomplete message repeated is inferior to an explanation including what is not known for certain, and just how uncertain it is and why.

Many, many opportunities for the CDC to educate have been squandered on preaching to the choir.

Edit: Though maybe you omitted a necessary "/s" sarcasm tag in favor of scare quotes.

transparency on what new information was received that is now changing the messaging.

Yeah sure, but I'm not sure accountability for who knew what and when is the concern here. Maybe you are on to something? I haven't the faintest.

this takes away the ammo of the conspiracy theorists

Reply on news.ycombinator.com