Comment by gray_charger | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gray_charger | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"The science" (I really hate that phrasing) doesn't change. Conclusive results require reproducibility. If "the science" changes then the initial findings were not reproducible and thus non conclusive and not "the science". Reproducibility points to a particular conclusion so following the trend shouldnt result in a complete 180 turnaround in provided information (the vaccines prevent the spread -> the vaccines don't prevent the spread). If they didn't have conclusive evidence of their statement they should just say " I don't know, but we are working to find that out". Premature assertions of correctness by the CDC, WHO, and other public health officials based on (now known) incorrect conclusions has done untold damage to their credibility making the public hesitant to trust them regarding any health guidance and in the worst case raising suspicion of malice from those most hurt by their guidance.

You're missing the point of the entire field of "Public Health." It's not to communicate the minutia of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. That's what academics are for. Public health is more like marketing, but with the goal to reduce harm rather than make profit. And that's OK, and a good thing, and to lambast them for trying to convey a simple, straight-forward message is really just not understanding what the role of public health is.

Great marketing, I can't direct people to WHO guidelines regarding things anymore to a fairly large chunk of population (like I could reliably 5-10yrs ago) without getting laughed at.

Great success, everybody's fired.

Even worse is "Trust the science", which means "Trust us". It's anti-science.

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned" -Richard Feynman

The vaccine originally went a long ways towards preventing the spread. The virus mutated enough that the vaccine now pretty much only means reduced severity of infection.

The situation changed, science recognizes this. This is not a case of the original results not being reproduceable!

Well said. Saying Covid is not airborne 2 weeks after discovery, and calling it science, is almost the complete opposite of science. There is no way you could prove reproducibly 2 weeks after discovery that a new respiratory illness is not airborne.

So it’s all politics. Yet they call it science.

As you said, this has caused immense trust loss institutions worldwide. For good reason. It’s a tragedy.

Science is not a gospel and it absolutely does change. In fact that's its main differentiating trait. Your theory that science produces certainty is infantile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com