Rational treatment might enable identifying individuals particularly at risk and not vaccinating those, but that option is closed to us. Instead, a random, suspicious fraction of the population pays particular attention to negative outcomes and avoids vaccination, to its detriment, and most of those at risk for problems get vaccinated anyway.
I don't think it was necessary at all, and instead is very counterproductive. Many people know they're not being dealt with honestly by the government and media, resulting in more distrust and resistance to vaccination, than there otherwise would be.
It is a tragic calculus. "Trolley Problems" are very far from theoretical in public health management. We are forced by distrust to sub-optimal choices that themselves promote distrust. Managing risk of a better population would be easier, but you battle pandemic in the population you have, not the population you want.
So tell the truth, build trust, and let people decide for themselves. That will save lives in the long run.
But even if you disagree, let’s talk about your claim that categorizing into two groups is stupid. Think from the citizen’s perspective of the CDC. The question is, “Do I trust them enough to take health advice from them?” If they have lied to you too many times about things that are important enough, the answer is no way. I never implied all that this lying group said was lies. Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops.
And all sources are flawed!
You can look into major issues without needing authority figures.
> When the public institutions become untrustworthy, and this lose their authority
Trust is not binary.
No source is unbiased.
No you can’t. Not unless you are doing the study yourself. And even then, almost all studies rely on other authorities. Things like death certificates and cause of death, hospital reports, etc. all depend on authorities and you have to decide whether you trust them for this thing.
I never said it was binary. I said trust can and is lost through lies. If you can’t acknowledge that, I’m not sure what else to say.
"Obviously one lie wipes out thousands of truths. Trust is gone. Listening stops."
I would call this binary. I don't really care what we call it, though. Especially if downplaying counts as lying, then this policy is completely infeasible. It means nobody will ever be listened to. Trust is wiped out in all circumstances.
It's a really stupid way of handling a biased source. And all sources are biased, so it's a really stupid way of handling sources.
If you want to say that one lie adds skepticism to a thousand truths, that would be a massive improvement, because A) it works well to be somewhat skeptical of all sources, and B) you can still learn from many sources you're skeptical of.
The best we can hope for is people doing their best with what they have to work with. Very many do.
The worst make shit up, routinely. They hone their message to attract dupes, and always succeed. Many of them believe whatever pulls; most don't care what is true or isn't.
I have no idea why you are talking about perfect authority.
What exactly is “doing their best”? Is it lying, trusting the end to justify the means?
There are always an expected number of deaths in any period of weeks after (or without) a vaccination, subject to big random fluctuations. It should be obvious that (a) numbers cannot be interpreted correctly without education, and (b) people without such education finding numbers will insist on interpreting them anyway, some ignorantly, some with active malice.
What and how much to publish about numbers reported are hard choices I am glad I don't need to make.
Even publishing nothing, there will be spurious reports claiming to know official numbers, and spurious interpretations of spurious numbers. Your fragile trust is broken regardless, among people so inclined.
Science shouldn't even be engaged in trying to save as many lives as possible. Science should only be concerned with discovering and disseminating the truth as it is.
I do empathize with the people trying to minimize deaths from a raging pandemic in an atmosphere of politically-motivated disinformation that is actively contemptuous toward public safety. People with your attitude make their work that much harder, and cost more unnecessary deaths.
However, you were advocating for not giving people accurate numbers. Whoever is in charge of that decision should not lie. They should give accurate numbers.
What they should do as a matter of abstract merit, or of public perception of benignity, are two wholly different, generally easier and less vexing questions.
I have plenty of complaints about how public health measures are prioritized in the US. I am not worried about official dishonesty. Public officials are just as good at fooling themselves as everybody else, so they can be wrong without lying, and will be at times. Expecting somebody, anybody to be right all the time is a recipe for disappointment.
We are guaranteed pandemics regardless, just by how much international travel we do. What matters is the response. We are lucky monkeypox (actually a rodent illness) is rarely fatal.
And, some people will get in car accidents on the way home from the clinic, that would not have happened if they didn't go. People who get in line are exposed to random pathogens others in line are distributing, and to any pathogens injected via insect bites in that place.
People who do not get vaccinated are subject to similar risks, but are not counted.
Playing up these numbers does nobody honest any good.
This is sarcasm of course.