COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Dale]

You don't have to understand how a car works to hire a mechanic.

The problem arises if you, not understanding how the car works, hire a good mechanic and then refuse to let him fix your brakes when he, as an expert, tells you that the brakes are unsafe but you read on facebook that mechanics disagree about the importance of fixing your brakes. Then you go out and endanger your own life and the lives of others simply because you, having no understanding, put your judgement over that of the experts.

And this is the problem with the scientific community right now: They're slowly losing the trust of the general population.

This is not a problem specific to the scientific community. Trust in all institutions is eroding among the general population. That includes government, financial institutions, religion, education, marriage, police, military, democracy, and science. I suspect that science is actually faring better than most other institutions as part of this general decline in institutional trust, but I don't have a reference for that.

That is not to say that science cannot do certain things to stem that rising tide of general distrust. There is considerable work in the medical and social sciences to fix the systematic issues that lead to the so-called "replication crisis". But I am not convinced that trust in the scientific establishment is at all improved by scientists not speaking out against misinformation when it is presented nor by scientists pretending that an expert informed opinion is no more valuable than an uninformed opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with that 100% and it is exactly what I said.

No, it's not what you said or what I said; you cut out the thesis what you quoted. Again: the government employs the scientists and delivers the scientists' message. That's exactly the opposite of what you said, but it is the unavoidable reality here.

The message to be heard is not "I believe vaccination is wrong" but "I don't trust you anymore, no matter what you say".

That's a problem. Once someone shuts out The Authority, then they have primed themselves to do the opposite of what The Authority suggests/demands, regardless of merit. That's basically what has happened here.

Do you mean like that? Do you know why you did that? That's because you cannot trust a mechanic alone, just because he's a mechanic.

No, you're misrepresenting the issue here/there. For starters, I'm a mechanical engineer and have some knowledge of how cars and their systems operate. So are many on PF (including you I believe?). I didn't take the car to a mechanic yet not because I don't trust them, but because the issue is minor enough I don't need to yet. Nor is that an accurate portrayal of dissenting information, particular given PF's high quality standards and members. Members here have known expertise. I repeat: much of the dissentingmis-information out there on COVID/the vaccine comes from literal fake news on social media.

You do the same with doctors and you would be crazy not to do it.

In point of fact, that is expressly prohibited on PF, for exactly the reasons I've explained. The approach that is being taken by many on this subject is not just dangerous, but is indeed in many cases, crazy. No, I most certainly would not take the same approach with doctors as I did with my car issue.

And again, my car issue was a weak battery. It's really difficult to kill someone with a weak battery. This is below the level of seriousness that required an immediate mechanic visit in the same way a minor runny nose or headache is below the level of seriousness that requires an immediate doctor visit.

You mean more serious than a braking system? You can kill yourself or others with a car that is not correctly maintained.

Yes, much more serious than a braking system. I can kill a small number of people with a failed braking system, but I can't kill 600,000. And much more complicated than a braking system.

Still not convinced of that. If you don't want to get Covid, take the measures you think are appropriate. You think wearing a mask is sufficient? Wear a mask. You think you're OK with a vaccine? Get vaccinated. Too many "irresponsible" people outside without a mask? Stay at home. Get a positive pressure set up for your home if you think you need it. I don't care where you get your information to do your risk analysis. And I welcome the government giving me information to help me make the best decisions. Still, I think it is my decision.

That's an unreasonably exclusivist view of how freedom works, because the choices are not symmetrical. One person can decide for everyone else in a supermarket/bar/stadium if that venue has a COVID risk, forcing everyone else to take action to mitigate it. Worse, nobody knows who/if that risk exists. It's similar to smoking, except you can't smell it. Prior to about 20 years ago, one smoker could go to a bar and turn the bar into a "smoking bar", that affected people who were already there. Heck, you could even say the same for drunk driving; if you don't want to be around me while I'm driving drunk, maybe you should stay home? The freedom to act irresponsibly ends where it impacts someone else. This is a foundational philosophy of why/for what modern governments exist.

Survivalists have been doing this type of thing for many years and they don't wait for the government or other people around them to act.

[edit] That's an example of a mitigation effort. This discussion isn't about how an individual's mitigation effort doesn't affect anyone else, it's about how an individual's lack of mitigation does affect everyone else. You're arguing the inverse of the position you are trying to defend.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem arises if you, not understanding how the car works, hire a good mechanic and then refuse to let him fix your brakes when he, as an expert, tells you that the brakes are unsafe but you read on facebook that mechanics disagree about the importance of fixing your brakes. Then you go out and endanger your own life and the lives of others simply because you, having no understanding, put your judgement over that of the experts.

And, indeed, you can be arrested and charged with vehicular homicide for failure to maintain a vehicle:
https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-2001-01-17-3349212-story.html

There was also a famous night club/pier collapse in Philly a few decades ago where the owners hired a structural engineer who told them the pier was collapsing and they opened it anyway. I think they might have been acquitted though.

And similarly/for example, violating a quarantine can be a chargeable offense.

 

[Dale]

The freedom to act irresponsibly ends where it impacts someone else. This is a foundational philosophy of why/for what modern governments exist.

Or the distinction between liberty and anarchy.

 

[PeroK]

Or the distinction between liberty and anarchy.

And, after all, the US Constitution says (emphasis mine):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's not the every-man-and-woman-for-themselves doctrine that some would have you believe.

 

[AlexCaledin]

...some experts believe that nasal vaccines are equally effective and easier to administer...

Experts say the antibody can provide both mucosal and systemic immunity when triggered by a vaccine sprayed into the nasal cavity. In contrast, injectable vaccines only provoke a systemic immune response.

https://floridanewstimes.com/creating-a-needle-free-covid-19-vaccine/282066/

 

[Ygggdrasil]

No, it doesn't. You don't have to understand how a car works to hire a mechanic. You ask some questions to different mechanics and you determine who looks more trustworthy. Sometimes it's the stranger with the big diploma and years of experience, sometimes it's your brother-in-law. People have been doing this for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

And this is the problem with the scientific community right now: They're slowly losing the trust of the general population. Why does a basketball player begin to publicly claim that the Earth is flat? Does he really care about the shape of the Earth? No, he doesn't. Why do people listening to him would believe him? He has zero credibility and he's just throwing the idea in a press conference, with no evidence to support it; people are not stupid, they can see that.

The true message here is that more and more people don't trust anything coming from the scientific community and that's how they retaliate, by throwing everything out the window. They will not answer back to you with your words and methods: they don't understand it, they don't even trust it. Just like when your mechanic or your brother-in-law says something fishy: you stop listening to him and go somewhere else; you don't care about his credentials.

And if the scientific community is too arrogant towards these people instead of trying to earn their trust back, it can lose everything. Even if it has all the right answers.

Although I definitely agree with the general point that the scientific community should improve how it communicates information with the general public, I don't think the specific point about scientists losing the trust of the general public is true. In general, polling in the US shows that public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades, even as confidence in other institutions (such as the press) has fallen:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...n-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/

This data, however, only goes up to 2018, and it's definitely possible that the pandemic could alter this trend. However, subsequent polling during the pandemic shows that public trust in medical scientists has grown from 2019 to 2020. Of course, attitudes could change, so it's worth monitoring how these attitudes change over the coming years, but so far, I see no data to support the idea that the general public is losing trust in science.

Rather, what I think may be happening brings us to the original point brought up by @atyy. Many news sources focus on reporting conflict and as such they magnify the voices of the minority who are doubting scientific results. This could give the false sense that many are losing confidence in science when (as polling of the larger population shows) this is not the case.

 

[jack action]

I don't think the specific point about scientists losing the trust of the general public is true. In general, polling in the US shows that public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades,

Maybe it's stable, but 44% is not a lot to begin with. Anyway, not for someone like me who is a true believer in the scientific method. But thanks for the data.

Many news sources focus on reporting conflict and as such they magnify the voices of the minority who are doubting scientific results.

The real question is why do these news sources choose to report those reporting conflicts in the first place. And this brings me back to the point that people are beginning to lose their trust in their usual sources.

The government is most likely the source of distrust. Since WWII, governments have been relying heavily on science to promote their messages (whether one thinks these messages are good or bad). Governments like to present science as some sort of divinatory tool and, except for some specialized cases (like in astronomy), it is not. It's more like a thorough risk analysis ... that can still be wrong ... mostly because it is handled by humans with emotions.

I am afraid that more and more people are now thinking that science and government are in the same bed and if they think one is bad, then so must be the other. Personally - although not adhering to any conspiracy theories - I don't like some "truths" I hear based on mathematical models, probabilities & statistics, or simplified experiments. I might not be an expert on those, but I played enough with them to know they are not always that reliable. Not saying they are not useful tools, just that you have to be careful interpreting the results.

That's why I think the science community should do a lot more to keep (increase?) its credibility by putting the accent more on their confidence interval and distancing itself from governments and their decisions.

 

[AlexCaledin]

. . . viruses are known to compete in order to be the one that causes an infection.

The team at the Centre for Virus Research in Glasgow used a replica of the lining of our airways, made out of the same types of cells, and infected it with Sars-CoV-2 and rhinovirus, which is one of the most widespread infections in people, and a cause of the common cold.

If rhinovirus and Sars-CoV-2 were released at the same time, only rhinovirus is successful. If rhinovirus had a 24-hour head start then Sars-CoV-2 does not get a look in. And even when Sars-CoV-2 had 24-hours to get started, rhinovirus boots it out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56483445

_______________________________________________________

- so, the unprecedented social distancing might have disabled the natural "vaccine" (the rhinovirus) - thus creating this unprecedented pandemic??

 

[mfb]

The real question is why do these news sources choose to report those reporting conflicts in the first place.

It sells better.

"Masks work" is a good story.
"Scientists say masks work but some people disagree, we invited one to discuss" sells better.
"Is mask wearing the newest plot by [group] to [insert random made-up goal]?" finds a large audience, too.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Maybe it's stable, but 44% is not a lot to begin with. Anyway, not for someone like me who is a true believer in the scientific method. But thanks for the data.

It's important to put that figure into context, however. Scientists are the most trusted group that were included in the poll, far exceeding the levels of trust of other groups such as religious leaders, journalists, business leaders and elected officials:

A 2020 Pew Research Center survey asked respondents about their confidence in certain groups and institutions to act in the best interests of the public. Out of the 10 groups and institutions included in the survey, Americans are most likely to express confidence in medical scientists, scientists and the military.

About nine-in-ten U.S. adults (89%) have either a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in medical scientists to act in the public interest. Large majorities also have at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists (87%) and the military (83%).

By contrast, about half of Americans have not too much or no confidence in journalists or business leaders (52% each) to act in the public interest. Public trust in elected officials also is comparatively low; a majority (62%) say they have little or no confidence in them.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...n-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/

Of course, a major caveat of this poll was that it was conducted in April 2020 (which could very well represent a high point in public trust of science), so attitudes could certainly have changed since then. We may have to wait for survey data from 2021 to see if the pandemic has affected the public's attitudes toward and trust in science and scientists.

 

[Jarvis323]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

And regarding science, you should place your trust in science itself, not people who proclaim to be using it.

 

[jack action]

It sells better.

It is not an answer because it leads to the question «Why does it sell better?»

In other words, why people are not satisfied with the message for the dominant scientific opinion? If they trusted this group, would they be spending time and money to hear about less popular opinions, sometimes from more obscure groups? If I take my mechanic example once more, if I find a good one, I don't waste my time shopping around when I get a new car problem: I already have an expert I trust. I certainly don't waste my time asking the shady ones.

 

[russ_watters]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

And regarding science, you should place your trust in science itself, not people who proclaim to be using it.

IMO, these views as stated are bleak, unreasonable and for practical purposes unworkable.

For the first; we can't all be experts in everything, nor do we have time or capability to learn or check everything. Trust - a great deal of it - is a requirement to function as a human in society unless one chooses to live in a cave. Our days are filled with activities that require a great deal of trust in a large number of people we've never met and that trust is given without even a first, much less second thought. Even in the dozen(s?) of life or death situations we face daily.

And for the second part: All of the above applies, plus it should be easier to trust people we are aware of than to trust people we aren't.

What's so bad about COVID anti-vax is that we have the necessary information to make rational decisions. It's not fear/lack of trust of the unknown, it's disbelief in the known.

 

[Jarvis323]

IMO, these views as stated are bleak, unreasonable and for practical purposes unworkable.

For the first; we can't all be experts in everything, nor do we have time or capability to learn or check everything. Trust - a great deal of it - is a requirement to function as a human in society unless one chooses to live in a cave. Our days are filled with activities that require a great deal of trust in a large number of people we've never met and that trust is given without even a first, much less second thought. Even in the dozen(s?) of life or death situations we face daily.

And for the second part: All of the above applies, plus it should be easier to trust people we are aware of than to trust people we aren't.

What's so bad about COVID anti-vax is that we have the necessary information to make rational decisions. It's not fear/lack of trust of the unknown, it's disbelief in the known.

So if a prominant scientist told you to jump off of a bridge because you'll be able to fly, would you? Why not?

 

[russ_watters]

So if a prominant scientist told you to jump off of a bridge because you'll be able to fly, would you? Why not?

Seriously? My mom used to say that to me. "If your friends..." Answer: maybe, but it depends on the context.

That's just plain not what this is/is so absurd it's hard to even respond to. How in the heck would I even get into such a conversation? "Hey doc, my knee hurts, what should I do...?"

 

[Jarvis323]

Seriously? My mom used to say that to me. "If your friends..." Answer: maybe, but it depends on the context.

That's just plain not what this is/is so absurd it's hard to even respond to. How in the heck would I even get into such a conversation? "Hey doc, my knee hurts, what should I do...?"

It's not absurd. It's an extreme example of a spectrum of subtly different types of situations. I think you should start there, and move right trying to figure out where you draw the line.

In any case, you've got to do some thinking for yourself and use some judgement. I have a feeling you will trust a scientist, because you think they're using science and scientific results. But you still have to trust the person first. If they tell you to do something ridiculous you will probably not trust them. If they tell you something that sounds plausible you might trust more. You'll want to know whether they have conflicts of interest. You'll want some convincing of some sort. You might get second opinions. If you're able to you might do some literature review of your own.

Maybe it is more likely that a scientist will be able to convince a person to take their advice. But you would be a fool to take it without deciding to trust them on that advice first.

 

[Jarvis323]

And we should not obfuscate the context. Trust in scientific institutions is suffering, but that is not all because trust in science is suffering.

In these crazy times, science has become heavily politicized, and the media is lumping good scientists in with right wing conspiracy theorists, even when they are right, if they go against an official media driven narrative, even when it's blatently wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not absurd. It's an extreme example of a spectrum of subtly different types of situations. I think you should start there, and move right trying to figure out where you draw the line.

But it's not even a response to a medical question I might ask. It's so far off the wall, I don't know how you would handle a basic medical issue. [answered later]

In any case, you've got to do some thinking for yourself and use some judgement. I have a feeling you will trust a scientist, because you think they're using science. But you still have to trust the person first. If they tell you to do something ridiculous you will probably not trust them.

Here's the thing: the anti-vax misinformation is based largely on social media chatter with zero provenance. You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism, but it's just not. People ARE being told ridiculous things by people they DON'T know the qualifications of, and in many cases don't actually even exist. This, "how do I know I can trust a scientist?" bit is just not the other side of the coin to that.

I'd kinda like to know how you learn to trust Dr. Faucci or your GP, but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

If they tell you something that sounds plausible you might trust more.

Does "contageous vaccine dna shedding" sound plausible?

You'll want to know whether they have conflicts of interest. You'll want some convincing of some sort. You might get second opinions.

Maybe it is more likely that a scientist will be able to convince a person to take their advice. But you would be a fool to take it without deciding to trust them on that advice first.

That all sounds nice, but:
1. In reality most people don't do that.
2. Second opinion, right. The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

 

[Jarvis323]

But it's not even a response to a medical question I might ask. It's so far off the wall, I don't know how you would handle a basic medical issue. [answered later]

Here's the thing: the anti-vax misinformation is based largely on social media chatter with zero provenance. You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism, but it's just not. People ARE being told ridiculous things by people they DON'T know the qualifications of, and in many cases don't actually even exist. This, "how do I know I can trust a scientist?" bit is just not the other side of the coin to that.

I'd kinda like to know how you learn to trust Dr. Faucci or your GP, but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

Does "contageous vaccine dna shedding" sound plausible?

That all sounds nice, but:
1. In reality most people don't do that.
2. Second opinion, right. The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

Ok, I think there is some confusion about what I was saying. I didn't mean to give credence to russian spambots, or anti-vaxers, or anyone. I am just in favor of skepticism in general. Obviously you should be way more skeptical of spammers than scientists.

The primary messenegers on vaccine science are mostly untrustworthy in my opinion. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the science on vaccines is untrustworthy.

Don't forget the FDA has been recently under fire for ignoring science and approving profitable and dangerous drugs that don't seem to work.

So it is kind if hard to blame vaccine skeptics. When the science we are relying on is at least sort of corrupted, the faith you expect everyday people to have in it will suffer.

 

[PeroK]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool. Maybe so. But, nothing bad has ever really happened to me because of my trusting nature.

It doesn't mean I believe everything everyone says, but generally what people tell me turns out to be the truth. That's my experience, in any case.

 

[Jarvis323]

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool. Maybe so. But, nothing bad has ever really happened to me because of my trusting nature.

It doesn't mean I believe everything everyone says, but generally what people tell me turns out to be the truth. That's my experience, in any case.

You're fine, but what about collectively (societies that believe what they're told by authoratitative figures without much question)?

It's like voting. Whether you vote or not probably won't make any difference.

 

[PeroK]

You're fine, but what about collectively (societies that believe what they're told by authoratitative figures without much question)?

It's like voting. Whether you vote or not probably won't make any difference.

I find your thought processes seriously hard to follow. I suspect that you are one person I definitely wouldn't trust!

 

[Jarvis323]

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool.

If you have a suspicious meter, than you don't have blind trust in people. Maybe your suspicious meter doesn't move a lot and that has worked out for you in your environment. That doesn't make you a fool.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I think there is some confusion about what I was saying. I didn't mean to give credence to russian spambots, or anti-vaxers, or anyone. I am just in favor of skepticism in general. Obviously you should be way more skeptical of spammers than scientists.

The primary messenegers on vaccine science are mostly untrustworthy in my opinion. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the science on vaccines is untrustworthy.

Don't forget the FDA has been recently under fire for ignoring science and approving profitable and dangerous drugs that don't seem to work.

So it is kind if hard to blame vaccine skeptics. When the science we are relying on is at least sort of corrupted, the faith you expect everyday people to have in it will suffer.

I have a more detailed response but I'm running out of time. My basic question is where is that healthy skepticism with the Covid vaccine? Describe how that healthy skepticism would look. Because all I am seeing is crackpots. This scenario with the Alzheimer's treatment is valid but it doesn't look anything at all like how the skepticism for the Covid vaccine is working.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, how much distrust in science do you need to stamp out? There are people who believe the Queen of England is a shape-shifting reptilian alien who has to drink human blood to maintain her appearance. Is this a problem?

Next, I think one needs to distinguish trust in science with trust in scientists. Scientists have been saying some nutty things, many of which have been discussed here. Do I really think a mask is needed outdoors on my patio, but not just indoors, separated by a screen? Do I really believe that the health risks of public demonstrations depend on the demonstration's topic?

Finally, there have been scientists behaving badly - at the same time Neil Ferguson was locking down the British economy, he was ignoring it to kanoodle with his mistress. Lockdown for thee, but not for me. That cannot help credibility.

 

[jack action]

You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism

I can't speak for @Jarvis323 , but that is not my case. You totally misunderstood my point.

by people they DON'T know the qualifications of

In most cases, they know the qualifications they DON'T have, i.e. they are not associated with the people they don't trust and that is enough for them.

but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

Exactly. What is your answer to these questions? (other than they are idiots or morons)

 

[Jarvis323]

I have a more detailed response but I'm running out of time. My basic question is where is that healthy skepticism with the Covid vaccine? Describe how that healthy skepticism would look. Because all I am seeing is crackpots. This scenario with the Alzheimer's treatment is valid but it doesn't look anything at all like how the skepticism for the Covid vaccine is working.

For me, by default, I am a little skeptical about the veracity of the trials, and findings coming from vaccine manufactures, and also of the messaging coming from health officials and others on the media. There are two conflicts of interest: 1) money (associated with vaccine profits and also with economic impacts of pandemics), and 2) other people will bennefit from you taking the vaccine whether or not it causes you harm.

But having looked at a large number of scientific studies, I've noted that getting Covid is a lot riskier for most people than getting the vaccine.

For some people, who are in the groups that are at higher risk of certain side effects, it's more difficult. Even if getting Covid is still significantly more dangerous for those groups, they could try to avoid getting covid. But Covid is highly infectious and the new variants are even more dangerous.

So I think the science heavily favors vaccination for the majority of people. But I honestly thnk that it takes a bit of reaearch for a person to make an informed decision. I think that, by default, an alternative scenareo where the science had been corrupted and a dangerous vaccine was being pushed, is plausible, and this needs to be ruled out carefully. Sadly I don't know how an individual can reliably rule these kinds of scenareos out without putting in some effort.

 

[WWGD]

As an overview, there seems to have been a global slowdown if we ignore Brasil and Australia. Down to less than 300,000 cases and around 3,000 deaths. Not great, but in the right direction

 

[russ_watters]

It is not an answer because it leads to the question «Why does it sell better?»

It's the Howard Stern Effect. Not only does it appeal to those who are primed toward crackpottery, it also appeals to those who are primed to dislike crackpottery. People react strongly to it either way. That's why I read/watch UFO/perpetual motion stories. Also, in many cases the "false balance" description even under-plays the problem. In many cases what should be science stories are treated as "human interest" stories, where the crackpot is the 90% focus and the 'crotchety, old, closed-minded scientist' only gets a one-liner in the report about how "the inventor" probably didn't, but it isn't impossible he might have discovered a new source of energy/treatment for COVID.

 

[russ_watters]

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool. Maybe so. But, nothing bad has ever really happened to me because of my trusting nature.

Yes*, but it's even more specific than that. When you go to a doctor (or mechanic, for that matter), you know at the very least that they are educated and certified to have the expertise you are paying them for. That should at least prime you to start off giving them the benefit of the doubt and trusting them. A facebook post from an unknown source doesn't have that starting credibility.

*Late edit: not yes to being a fool, yes to default trust, if that wasn't clear. And to expand; because of the fact that we have to trust people with our lives (and more mundane things) on a regular basis, the opposite default position (assumed dishonest/lack of trust) would be very problematic to implement in real life. It may even be what causes things like anti-vax crackpottery. If someone is primed to distrust the first position they hear and/or the authoritative one, then they may also be primed to immediately trust the dissenting opinion of crackpots, even though that is a logical contradiction.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't speak for @Jarvis323 , but that is not my case. You totally misunderstood my point.

Then can you clarify/re-state or at least tell me if this alternative is correct?:

You started into this by arguing an extreme version of liberty (personal choice). I am indeed extending that to a next step of assuming you believe that people can be trusted to make "The Right Choice?" if we let them. Are you instead arguing that we should be be giving the choice even if they make "The Wrong Choice"? Or that there's no such thing as Right/Wrong in personal choice? If so, given that we are discussing this issue over 600,000 American deaths alone, I have to self-censor how I feel about that view. The stakes here are really, really, really high.

In most cases, they know the qualifications they DON'T have, i.e. they are not associated with the people they don't trust and that is enough for them.

Again, you seem to be arguing the mirror/opposite of the position you are defending(though there is some vagary in that sentence). Not having 100% trust in Dr. Fauci is fine. But we're talking about why people choose to trust a nameless facebook post instead -- which is not fine, it's dumb. And these people sure don't act like they know they aren't doctors.

Exactly. What is your answer to these questions? (other than they are idiots or morons)

Does there need to be another answer besides the one I already gave? Yes, I said exactly what I believe, and I'll put it in different wording: there's a frighteningly high fraction of people who are behaving like idiots these days. Maybe that fraction isn't unusual, but what is unusual is that a whole lot more people than usual have died because of it.

 

[russ_watters]

First, how much distrust in science do you need to stamp out? There are people who believe the Queen of England is a shape-shifting reptilian alien who has to drink human blood to maintain her appearance. Is this a problem?

I'm not sure, I am not familiar with that belief. How many people have died because of it?

Next, I think one needs to distinguish trust in science with trust in scientists. Scientists have been saying some nutty things, many of which have been discussed here. Do I really think a mask is needed outdoors on my patio, but not just indoors, separated by a screen? Do I really believe that the health risks of public demonstrations depend on the demonstration's topic?

The one part of @jack action 's views I agree with is the part where a lot of the loss of trust in scientists is a result of their views being funneled through politicians. And in some cases, scientific bodies (the WHO) acting like political bodies. And yes, that was a problem that contributed to the distrust and the deaths. But again, skepticism in the WHO's impartiality (for example) should not lead one to accept at face value just anything they see on facebook. As I told Jack, these are complete opposites. Moderate skepticism of The Scientific Authority has somehow caused total acceptance/lack of skepticism of/in obvious crackpottery.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Another data point - I was at the grocery store yesterday and for the first time in weeks, there wasn't a huge scrum of non-socially-distanced people waiting for shots. I asked the pharmacist and she said they were out of vaccine.

Interestingly, they are a Pfizer site, and their corporate overlords can get Moderna, but the State won't let them switch. Each site has one and only one vaccine, and patients must return to the site of their first shot for their second. That's how they ensure nobody gets mixed vaccines.

Maybe more interestingly, they knew this would happen weeks ago. The State's plan was to go full out until they ran out. One day the joint was jamming (or is that jabbing?) and the next day, nothing.

I should have asked - but didn't - is if "out" means "out" or if they have a few doses still on hand for people who missed their second dose window.

 

[russ_watters]

More detailed response I mentioned:

Ok, I think there is some confusion about what I was saying. I didn't mean to give credence to russian spambots, or anti-vaxers, or anyone. I am just in favor of skepticism in general. Obviously you should be way more skeptical of spammers than scientists.

The primary messenegers on vaccine science are mostly untrustworthy in my opinion. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the science on vaccines is untrustworthy.

I'm having trouble unpacking that. It's an incredible statement/claim. Who do you consider the "primary messengers" and on what basis are they untrustworthy? [probable answer below] To me, the key messenger here (for the US) is the FDA. The FDA exists exactly and only to ensure the safety and efficacy of pharma products, and was created in response to literal "snake oil" sales. It's one of the more important and successful government institutions we have.

The FDA is the gatekeeper of the vaccine development/deployment, which is going to go down in history as one of the most important/successful scientific/engineering projects in human history. It's on par with The Great Pyramid or the Apollo Program. Is it perfect? Obviously, no. But "untrustworthy"? That's...[censored] hard to fathom.

Don't forget the FDA has been recently under fire for ignoring science and approving profitable and dangerous drugs that don't seem to work.

So it is kind if hard to blame vaccine skeptics. When the science we are relying on is at least sort of corrupted, the faith you expect everyday people to have in it will suffer.

Yep, the FDA is not perfect, and yep, that's a concerning case. And it hits home for me: my dad is in early stage/entering mid-stage Alzheimer's. So I am in a position where I need to provide guidance on whether he should take that drug or not. I haven't looked into it much yet, but I will. And while I think I am better equipped than average to sort it out, I'm not a doctor. I'll be consulting doctors for advice.

I will not be consulting Russian facebook spambots for their opinion on the issue.