If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed, we thought so otherwise and gave bad advice, we're sorry, please wear masks", then sure... some will get mad, because their relatives died by following the advice, but for most, it would be a decent thing done by their governments... but banning people who suggested that we need masks, and then banning people who suggested that we didn't need masks without unbanning the first group, is, well... stupid.
> The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first.
Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else?
There's two different things to discuss here. One is "the science" and one is "public health guidelines", and they're different things. It is one thing to discuss the behavior of the virus in a scientific context. It is another thing to spread memes, FUD, or armchair conjecture in a forum of non-experts that make claims counter to the latest scientific consensus.
> censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed,
This isn't a fault of scientists or regulators. This is a failure of social media and their user base. They are incapable of being nuanced enough to determine the difference between scientific discussion, pseudoscience, conjecture, and malice. And so, those platforms became filled with speech that confused all four, and those who managed those platforms threw up their hands and resorted to heavy handed tactics because they lack the capability to do anything more precise.
> If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed
When the guidance changed, they did announce the change, along with the reason. The reason wasn't a "fuck up" it was new data that changed the calculus.
> Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else?
That isn't at all what happened, or what the problem was. The national stockpile of masks wasn't mismanaged by scientists, it was mismanaged by politicians. And JIT inventory wasn't implemented by distributors and hospital management by scientists, it was done by MBAs. And divesting manufacturing overseas wasn't done by scientists, it was done by wall street. And again, as I said in a sibling comment, the CDC was upfront about the rationale from the beginning.
But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? What about when vaccines became available, someone said "even if vaccinated, you'll still get it, you can still spread it to your grandma, and she can still die from it, and the 'vaccinated people don't get ill' is a lie!"? I mean... it turned out to be true, but it got deleted from facebook and it got you banned from a lot of reddit.
> This isn't a fault of scientists or regulators. This is a failure of social media and their user base. They are incapable of being nuanced enough to determine the difference between scientific discussion, pseudoscience, conjecture, and malice. And so, those platforms became filled with speech that confused all four, and those who managed those platforms threw up their hands and resorted to heavy handed tactics because they lack the capability to do anything more precise.
...and wikipedia, the topic of this post.
> That isn't at all what happened, or what the problem was. The national stockpile of masks wasn't mismanaged by scientists, it was mismanaged by politicians. And JIT inventory wasn't implemented by distributors and hospital management by scientists, it was done by MBAs. And divesting manufacturing overseas wasn't done by scientists, it was done by wall street. And again, as I said in a sibling comment, the CDC was upfront about the rationale from the beginning.
The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now".
I'll answer this two different ways:
1. For ad supported platforms: Regardless of anyone's moral objections, ad supported platforms have neither the expertise nor desire to do anything otherwise. They are not scientific experts, they aren't any good at moderating nuanced speech, and they barely have the capability to moderate even the most obvious of situations on their platform.
2. In regards to Wikipedia, while they at least attempt to operate in a way that prioritizes information over profit incentives, it has always been a battleground of agendas by people of varying qualification hiding behind keyboards. Truth is just an inherently hard thing to determine, especially when it is a contemporary topic with a lot of change that requires expertise to understand. If it is hard for the world's best experts to come to an answer, it will be even harder others to do the same. Then the question is more about balance of quality -- do you want your platform to contain more information, even if some is wrong? Or do you want to maintain a higher standard, even if you kick out some people who might have been right? What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct? I don't think there's a correct answer for every situation here, but there are absolutely good arguments for why you might not want to let people cry fire in a crowded theatre if the other attendees disagree.
> The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now".
What "general consensus" are you referring to? What the CDC said in March 2020 was that masks were recommended to be prioritized for healthcare workers who needed them the most. This was reasonable at the time, and still reasonable in hindsight.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc...
> And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.
So, if you listened to CDC, you'd get vaccinated, grandma would get vaccinated, you'd go to grandma, and think you were safe, while infecting her with covid and in a few days/weeks killing her.
If you listened to a "local conspiracy nut", who was telling you that vaccines don't work, that there will be no herd immunity and that vaccines were causing heart issues, you'd be closer to reality than if you listened to the CDC director.
So, do you want a platform that lets all opinions, "correct" and "wrong", to stay there, or a platform that lets wrong 'facts' (because some authority told them they're facts) stay, while deleting true 'conspiracy theories'.
How many times can "authorities" (cdc, whoever) be wrong, and conspiracy theorists right, before we stop censoring the truth to protect the authorities?
> What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct?
Like "if you get vaccinated, you won't get sick and spread it"? Fever and caughing? You're vaccinated right? It's just a cold, go to work, visit grandma, vaccinated people don't get covid, don't carry the virus. I mean.. you're advocating censorship for Bob Average from oregon while supporting the wrong and dangerous information from authorities.
A broken clock is wrong twice per day, but that doesn't mean you should consider one as a valid NTP server. (and in fact, the conspiracy nut was still wrong, vaccines do work, to prevent hospitalization and death) Basing a guideline off of data, and updating when wrong, is a more rigorous methodology than fabrication and conjecture.
The quantity and quality of evidence available to support an opinion is a relatively way to measure that opinion's validity. That doesn't make them infallible, but it makes them less fallible than opinions that lack quality rationale.
> So, do you want a platform that lets all opinions, "correct" and "wrong", to stay there, or a platform that lets wrong 'facts' (because some authority told them they're facts) stay, while deleting true 'conspiracy theories'.
Usually something in the middle, depending on the specifics. I think too many people are quick to apply broad free speech ideals to everything, when in reality, context, audience, venue, and impact matters a LOT.
And if your NTP server has failed you once before.. and again.. and again... would it be unreasonable to say "maybe the NTP is wrong" the next time something weird happens with your system clock?
The degree to which someone might do reasonably do this, and what action they might reasonably take as a result, depends on the audience, the moderator of the medium, their ability to moderate, and their ability judge the evidence independently.
Except that wasn’t the messaging at the time. The messaging at the time was that masks didn’t work. Then, when the supply chain caught up and the authorities wanted to impose mask mandates, the messaging changed and they said masks did work. The “facts” were manipulated in order to align with the desired policy outcomes.
That isn't true, at least in regards to the CDC's guidance. The CDC was up front about the reasoning from the beginning. There were others who repeated different variations of this, which has clouded this topic for a long time.
> March 24, 2020
> “Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers,” the government agency says.
> https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...
(7) In March 2020, Dr. Fauci told Americans not to wear
masks, noting: ``There's no reason to be walking around with a
mask. When you are in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask
might make people feel a little bit better and it might even
block a droplet, but it is not providing the perfect protection
that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended
consequences--people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep
touching their face.''.
(10) Dr. Fauci also now claims that herd immunity will
require 80 to 85 percent of Americans to get the vaccine.
At that time, many people thought that transmission was (or might be) also prevalent thorough surface contact. If that was the case, it would be less of a reason to wear masks, as the general public isn't trained in aseptic technique and, as I'm sure you're observed, touches the heck out of their masks.
In that context, there's not a damn thing wrong with that quote.
> Somehow herd immunity dissapeared from the media too.
Yeah, because we all learned new things! We learned that while the vaccines did do a good job at preventing death and serious disease, they not provide a great deal of immunity. And we also learned that immunity, if any, waned quickly, and people could be infected multiple times. So yeah, there's not much reason to talk about herd immunity, because it ain't gonna happen.
> Yeah, because we all learned new things! We learned that while the vaccines did do a good job at preventing death and serious disease, they not provide a great deal of immunity.
Back then? No.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... (interview with the director of the CDC)
> And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.
If you went on facebook/reddit back then, the day after that interview, and wrote: "vaccines don't give you a lot of immunity, you'll still get ill, you'll still infect grandma, she can still die from covid, and even with 100% vaccination rate, there will never be herd immunity!", what would happen to your post? Would it stay there? Or would it be removed for misinformation? If you were a public figure and said that out loud, would "the science/experts" agree with your (then and now) perfectly valid theory, or would you be called an antivaxxer, denyer, conspiracy theorist?
The problem is that Facebook is an expert on the React codebase, not immunology, and their moderators are underpaid, overworked, and unskilled. The best they can do is "if post doesn't match official guidelines, delete".
When people are dying, regulators are breathing down your neck, and you just want to keep selling ads in a freefall market, what would you do? It's understandable that they did what they did. They're a digital billboard company that makes money off of boomer memes, vacation photo sharing, and high school reunion organizing. They're not arbiters of truth.
Statements that are actually factual are some of the strongest supporting evidence for false conspiracy theories, when given to audiences that don't fully understand the context of the situation. As a basic example, many people misinterpreted things like "you can still get COVID if you wear a mask or vaccinate" as being equivalent to "masks and vaccines don't work", because they're not intimately familiar with how viruses spread and/or how disease impact may vary in outcome. Most people unfamiliar with a topic will have a more general, black-and-white approximate understanding of something, and this is no different for public health topics.
Whether or not a statement should be frowned upon or not really depends not just on the factuality, but also a lot on the context and what it might suggest to the audience.
If someone sees someone else smoking a cigarette in a crowded theater, yells "fire!", and then people die in a stampede to the exits, the statement should be frowned upon, regardless of the fact that it was factual. "Being right" is not always enough.
> vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.
This does not require you to be scientifically literate to be able to understand what she's saying. It's not a scientific show, they're not using greek symbols and formulas, but "vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick". This means that a vast majority if not all vaccinated people don't carry the virus and don't get sick (as they don't with eg. polio vaccine, mumps vaccine, whooping cough etc. vaccines).
If we put a scale from "totally work" to "don't work at all", the vaccines would be closer to "don't work".
The cigaretta analogy is bad. This is like seeing dark smoke coming from a long hallway at work, your boss closing of the hallway, saying "we have everythng under control, go back to your office" and your coworker getting arrested for saying "the burning will burn down, run outside".... and then the building burns down.
The vaccines are highly effective at preventing people from dying or becoming seriously ill. Which is the entire reason to be afraid of the virus to begin with.
"Preventing infection" is only relevant in the context of the consequences of the infection, and muddying the water with discussions about infection probability when the the vaccine is effective at preventing death and hospitalization is a reckless red herring that confuses people.
An equivocation of "you can still get sick with the vaccine" with "the vaccines don't work" is exactly the kind of misinformation crap that should be removed from platforms with any kind of responsible moderation.
I’m not making fun of you. I think you are probably an intelligent person who now is forced to persuade themselves that they weren’t lied to, it was just all messy and complicated. That your authority figures weren’t acting in ignorance or bad faith, most people just didn’t get it.
We really are wired for religious tribalism.
New information doesn't make old information a lie. The act of distilling nuanced judgment about a complex topic into a recommendation is not a lie.
Outsiders on many topics believe things are a lot more black-and-white than they really are. The reality is the scope of discussion in the public sphere is always much more narrow than the scope of discussion among experts. You could point to any public statement ever, in any field, and the internal discussions would be more nuanced than the public statement. This isn't prima facie evidence of lying or scheming. Public statements are inherently not a brain dump of internal discussion.
You know how people on this forum and watch the news about a tech topic, and shake their head at how they oversimplify the topics to the point of misunderstanding? That is exactly how public health experts react to people trying to make a fuss about the CDCs response.
It was later drummed up by pretty much all masking enthusiasts that not wearing a mask is equal to murdering a grandma or two, and some "immunnocompromised" people on top. Surely, grand-scale messaging from position of high authority that "you don't need to wear a mask" will have a quantifiable number of associated deaths, and a very substantial one, under such assumption? Why the perpetrators of the message aren't put on trial for manslaughter? After all, the court may find that they had a "good reason" and acquit them of charges! I will have some basis to believe "public health" messaging, but not before such case is heard. What is the chance it will be?
I know it will never happen.
It's super confusing due to all the lying, but actually that's the revisionist history. The real timeline goes like this:
1. Scientists are asked if masks will work to stop COVID. They say no because there's little to no evidence in the literature that surgical/cloth masks can stop the spread of a respiratory virus. This initial position is correct.
2. There is a very short lived campaign by professional activist types called #MasksForAll which pressures public health officials to recommend masks for everyone.
3. Scientific advisors discuss in private and say things like "it probably won't help but can't really hurt so why not" and agree to support it.
4. Message changes.
5. People demand explanations for why the message changed. Mostly officials stay silent and refuse to answer. Fauci specifically (not so much elsewhere) claims that this was a vast conspiracy (!) to manage supply chain capacity. But this isn't correct and private correspondence uncovered afterwards reveals this, for example, Fauci is asked in private emails what he thinks about masks and answers the same way as in step (1).
What happened here took a lot of work to uncover, but there's no longer any doubt about the correct sequence of events here. The idea of "masks don't work" being a noble lie, is itself a lie, which is why it's so confusing - Fauci and allies lied about lying.
As an example of just one piece of evidence pointing in this direction, a BBC journalist tweeted:
https://archive.is/20201205224307/https://twitter.com/deb_co...
> We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny
(she later deleted the tweet as orthodoxy inverted and the true reasons for masking were covered up)
But there's also the fact that mask mandates didn't have any effect when introduced, which shows that the initial stance was the correct one. And the posited conspiracy is a stupid one too. Almost all masks were imported and governments can easily seize shipments at the ports to control distribution if they need to. Lying to the public (and by extension, health workers) is by far the most idiotic way to manage supply chains imaginable.
Why did they do this? Public health seems to have big cultural problems with the idea that tradeoffs exist. In both private and public they tend to describe their proposed policies as being cost-free. If you and everyone around you genuinely believes that any health policy is pure upside then why not mandate masks? It can't hurt and might help, therefore, you must do it. But people outside public health culture expect recommendations to be stable and tradeoffs to be justified. So they conclude that they must lie to the public, because they know deep down that expressing their true beliefs and true level of uncertainty would discredit them.
Some call it "revisionist history" some call it gaslighting. It was the same with vaccines... get vaccinated, and you won't get it, herd immunity at X% vaccination rate, safe and effective, etc. ...and now? Slightly lower chance to die, but you can still infect and kill grandma, even if both of you are vaccinated.
Imagine seeing ads for a car, buying it, and getting something that doesn't drive, the radio doesn't work, and the car salesman saying "if it rains, you can still sit inside and it'll keep you dry". ...and then finding out, that everyon warning you about that got censored from everywhere.
They’ll go to their graves defending that car.
Someone put together a super clip of all the vaccine propaganda, including all of Colbert’s (literally and proudly, sponsored by Pfizer) song and dance routines… looking at it now, to call it blatant propaganda would be under selling it.
> Writing a message with an audience in mind is good communication.
Yes, and lying isn't.
The problem is that his admission to lying is itself a lie. That's quite the 5D chess move and it has confused a huge number of people. Masks never worked, the claim that they did is a lie. The original claim was correct, and the claim that it was a lie, is a lie. That's just masks, before you even get to other topics.