OMG Omicron

[MightyGiants]

While this outstanding thread has been somewhat derailed with Bob's instruction of false propaganda about this deadly disease, I am going to post this article in an effort to bring this discussion back on track

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/2021-12-31/omicron-is-spreading-at-lightning-speed-scientists-are-trying-to-figure-out-why

Try to return to the high-quality discussion about Covid and the market

[MightyGiants]

I am also going to offer up this.  I said the article I posted was quality and the blog Bob posted was trash.  I think perhaps it's only fair that I talk about what one should look for (when it comes to scientific articles) to determine quality from dangerous trash/misinformation


The nature of science is such that it rarely deals in absolutes.  So if you see words like "suggest", "the evidence seems to support...", or provides contradictory evidence, that is a good sign that the article and author is trying to educate and enlighten rather than pursue a personal agenda.

There should be plenty of hyperlinks to studies and experts.   When there is a discussion of a study or an expert cited, the quality publications will frequently have hyperlinks that allow one to trace back to the sources.  Links to authors are less rare, but links to studies and events are very common in quality work

A brief resume of an expert is a base need (why is this person someone qualified to speak).  However, beware of people inflating their resumes in an effort to get people to take them at their word.    Here are some classic weasel word claims that should always set off alarm bells (taken from Bob's blog link)-   " internationally recognized" (recognized is not the same as actually being) , "the original inventor" ("original" is the tip off there, plus if he was the inventor as he claims his name would be celebrated and he wouldn't need to be bragging), "invited speaker at over 50 conferences" (a vague claim since we don't know what sort of conferences they were or what was the standard for an invite or why they were invited),  "building a twitter feed of almost a half million people"  (I don't think I need to explain why this isn't a sign of legitimacy)

Science has excellent gate keepers and despite claims to the contrary ideas that are supported with evidence does get through.  Any time you hear someone claiming that they are telling the truth and that the medical or scientific community is keeping them down or silencing them, steer well clear of them as the reason they are claiming that is that their claims are so much hot air or are badly flawed which is the real reason they are working outside the system.

Circling back to the article, another indicator of quality is when you see multiple qualified sources cited and multiple studies cited.   When you see blogs or articles that are counting on one source to push a message or conclusion it's best to be wary.  Why is there one source (there can be a good reason, but often there isn't)?   Is the study peer-reviewed (this is a must)?    As for one person, it's far better to stick with consensus in the field rather than the opinions of one person (especially when those opinions are contrary to consensus ).   I mean occasionally you might have the right answer as that person will sway the opinion of their field, but it's best to wait and see that play out rather than gamble that the person is a pioneer rather than just a contrarian with a bad opinion.

Finally, with science, it's about knowledge and enlightenment.   Good articles attempt to educate/explain.    What science doesn't do is try and promote an agenda using pseudo-scientific claims.   So if you have people pushing an agenda while citing supposed science, best to steer clear.

[DaveBrown74]

So based on the times of the videos, none of what you posted would qualify as "misinformation" especially as it relates to actual misinformation like the blog Bob posted

MG,

My own take on these videos was not that there was any sort of ill intent on the part of those speaking. "Misinformation" tends to imply that there was such ill intent (although it doesn't have to mean that), so perhaps it wasn't the absolute best word choice. Maybe "inaccurate information" or "falsehoods" would have been better. And as far as these statements being "true at the time", I have two thoughts on that:

(1) They could be stated differently. "Current research suggests that" or "From what we can tell right now" type qualifiers could have been used. Just saying "if you get the vaccine you are at a very, very low risk of getting covid" is a clumsily matter of fact way of putting it. In fact, I'm not even sure that was "true at the time." I don't recall scientists or the drug companies saying if you take the vaccine you are highly unlikely to get covid. Even back in the early days of the vaccine, we talked about percentage of effectiveness, but that was not the same as saying you almost definitely won't get it if you're vaccinated. I certainly never thought that getting the vaccine meant I would not get covid. So Biden's words in his video seem particularly false and misinformed, which is less than ideal when you're the POTUS managing a national and global crisis. Trump was heavily criticized for exactly this sort of thing, and very rightfully so, so Biden should not get a full pass just because he's not Trump.

(2) You said yourself that there was an element of fibbing on the part of the government with the "lose the mask" advice. So, in fact, to a certain extent they actually were being manipulative and deliberately deceptive. Unfortunately, being lied to or even fibbed to by leaders seldom rubs people the right way, even if the ultimate intentions are good.

The bottom line in my opinion is that when people hear things from leadership stated in a matter of fact, "this is how it is" sort of way, and then these statements later turn out to be false or are gone back on, that tends to lead to mistrust or at least a loss of confidence in the validity of information people are hearing. The "well it was true at the time" bit isn't going to resonate with large swaths of this country as a legitimate excuse. Nor is that even wholly true when it comes to the Biden remarks in that video.

[Ed Vette]

All these videos you posted are old, with the newest being July 8th.   At the time of each video, the message sent was correct.   When you are dealing with a virus that has mutated and changed over time and a new vaccine where we needed to learn how long it would last, the guidelines will change over time.   Look, change doesn't mean the old positions were false inaccurate.   

Beyond that, there are many other factors that went into policy that it seems you were not aware of.   The government initially was quite aggressive with the lose the mask if you get vaccinated policy not just because it was safe (at least for a time) for people who got vaccinated to lose their masks, but the idea of going mask free was a huge carrot to convince people to get vaccinated (getting more people vaccinated is a huge life savers).   So decisions were quite a bit more complicated than you are portraying.  The goal was to save as many lives as possible so if there was a huge increase in vaccinations due to the promise of losing the masks, that would offset the small uptick that the mask-free policy created.

In addition, vaccines don't protect people by preventing them from getting infected.  Sure, some do, but the overarching protection of a vaccine is to keep one from getting really sick or worse dying.   To this day the vaccines have been highly effective in preventing death or severe illness from the variants.   In fact, at one point there was the idea that if we could get the overwhelming portion of the population vaccinated, Covid may not be eradicated but the danger and disruption from it would be lowered to that of say the flu.  So as we tried to get society back to normal (there are challenges with many Covid restrictions) this was one line of thinking.

The videos are intentionally old to show that from the beginning, the message was misleading. The goal of a carrot at the end of a stick to mislead the public into thinking they would not get Covid if they were vaccinated knowing that, "vaccines don't protect people by preventing them from getting infected" was a very poor decision.

The message should have been to give it to them straight. Initially there would have been some who would have had to be convinced that the vaccine would keep them from dying and to avoid the effects of Long Covid as the motivating factor but in the long run, the trust would have been there. The self serving would not have been able to continue to lead the sheep. So now the country is faced with a situation where a substantial portion of the population does not trust any message coming from Public Health or from Leadership and that a serious problem.

It's gotten so bad that they even booed Trump when he commented that he got the booster. That conspiracy XXXXXXX Alex Jones then jumped all over it to enhance his social media presence by condemning Trump. Just to perpetrate his false messages to those masses. 

You don't have to 'educate' me on the vaccines and mask wearing. I'm fully aware of the facts. That doesn't prove your point to win an argument. The fact remains that there are people who will never get vaccinated now because they won't listen to any message. There will not be any vaccine mandates that take away Civil Liberty because it's political suicide, not because it's the basic foundations to the Constitution and the principals this Republic was founded on.

Meanwhile many fully vaccinated people will not wear masks and will contract the virus mutations and pass it on to both vaccinated who trust those people to be in close contact and to the unvaccinated people. Many will be hospitalized and many will die each day. In addition to the anti-vaxers. Times Square was packed with maskless people on top of each other. I had a close friend who was fully vaccinated and got Covid during a rain delay when the maskless stadium poured into the promenades. 

So you may believe that it was the lesser evil but I don't. In the meantime, we had a full year to prepare for what we are experiencing today and I'm very disappointed that there is a shortage of text kits and very long lines for the few testing sites throughout NYC. Furthermore, people are paying for whatever test kits they can scrounge up and hoarding them when they should have been covered for free and universally available. 

[DaveBrown74]

Of course, on the other hand, if the government of a country or those elite few who control social media go too far to suppress the flow of information, you can end up like this:

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1477373810189996033

[MightyGiants]

Look Ed and DB, at the time those statements were made we were seeing very few breakthrough infections.  I was not saying (as both of you suggested) that Dr Fauci, President Biden (or the CDC for that matter) misled or fibbed or told a white lie.  It was factually correct to say that the vaccine protected people from Covid.  Where I differ is the changing of mask policy that accompanied the vaccinations.  That was a judgment call that how to balance many factors (all of which were important and significant).    I will also say that at the time of those videos, I was of the belief that we were seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.  Between the normal summer lull, more and more people getting vaccinated (I hold the holdouts responsible for their decisions I do not blame the government) it appeared we had Covid on the ropes and we were nearing the end of the disease being a significant issue (barring a new variation that defeated our vaccines).   Yet things did change (as they have done throughout the pandemic).  A combination of vaccines weakening, people doing less social distancing, too many people refusing vaccinations, and the Delta variant thriving created conditions in late July that were not anticipated. 

Look I get it, I appreciate that you guys have a different opinion of what and how things should be said.  That is normal, not everyone is going to agree with how things are said.   You can even make reasonable arguments that your way of saying things would have been better.  However, there is a difference between having a different opinion of messaging and misinformation.    In this case, nothing posted could be classified as misinformation (at the time it was said) or at the very least deliberate misinformation or deception.   Nor were any of these statements made in a vacuum, the CDC and public health officials were pushing more detailed and nuanced messages to the public (if they were willing to listen).   To me, if you want to talk about an elected official pushing misinformation that would or should cost credibility, this is a prime example:


Marco Rubio
@marcorubio
Record numbers testing positive for a sore throat isn

[Ed Vette]

Here is another example of the message that confuses the masses. Fauci contradicting the CDC.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-cdc-might-recommend-asymptomatic-end-isolation-early-test-negative-2022-1

[Ed Vette]

Do you think the message sent by Abbott said it wasn

[Bob In PA]

My prediction about 18 months ago is turning out to be correct.  I said:

(1) eventually everyone would get covid whether or not they were vaccinated;
(2) the situation would likely morph into being very similar to the flu (it would never go away, it would mutate every year, we would just have to "deal with it," and there is/was no way to "defeat" it or "wipe it out").

These statements were met with... well, let's say "skepticism" (generally speaking). 

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Here is another example of the message that confuses the masses. Fauci contradicting the CDC.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-cdc-might-recommend-asymptomatic-end-isolation-early-test-negative-2022-1

Ed,

Fauci is working with the CDC, it's not like he is contradicting him.    Fauci and the CDC are aware of the pushback and criticism on the new isolation protocols and said that the CDC is reconsidering and is likely to add testing to the new policy.   Where is the contradiction?    You could try to fault that they are changing the standards so quickly, and to a degree that is a fair point (should have got it right the first time).  On the other hand, I welcome and appreciate that they were willing to listen to criticism and adjust accordingly.    I think that is a sign of quality leadership.

Do you think the message sent by Abbott said it wasn

[Ed Vette]

Ed,

Fauci is working with the CDC, it's not like he is contradicting him.    Fauci and the CDC are aware of the pushback and criticism on the new isolation protocols and said that the CDC is reconsidering and is likely to add testing to the new policy.   Where is the contradiction?    You could try to fault that they are changing the standards so quickly, and to a degree that is a fair point (should have got it right the first time).  On the other hand, I welcome and appreciate that they were willing to listen to criticism and adjust accordingly.    I think that is a sign of quality leadership.

One of the things when you are saving lives as a government is you often need to enact laws that are not popular.   Speed limits are not all that popular, yet they are enacted because they save lives.   Mandates on masks and vaccines are also unpopular but they, like speed limits, save lives.    It's pretty depressing to see leaders pander rather than do the right thing.   That said, I have noticed that all politicians are losing at least a degree of their political will and that policies these days are not as strong as I would like (from a public health standpoint).   Although, I am also mindful that many anti-Covid measures do come with costs so it's a balancing act in terms of weighing the benefits and the cost of any given measure.

It's two different messages Rich. You think that's quality leadership? This is why people stop listening and the message becomes a political talking point. Get it right the first time. So here is what is going to happen. Once the symptoms go away, the vast majority is not going to get tested unless it's job required. I doubt they will even wear a mask in many parts of this country where they think Fauci is a clown and they don't trust the CDC or the WHO. You have to know that the Margie's (MTG) of the world will say something stupid and people will believe every word. Who btw was thrown off Twitter for stating false information. Another leader with a bad message only this XXXXXXX is all about disinformation but she actually believes whatever comes out of her filterless mouth.

I'm done with this, Rich. Believe what you want.   

[MightyGiants]

I doubt they will even wear a mask in many parts of this country where they think Fauci is a clown and they don't trust the CDC or the WHO. t.

Between people who have smeared these people and entities in pursuit of their political agendas, and people like yourself, who in my opinion are playing Monday morning QB, is it any wonder that people are doing the wrong things and listening to the wrong people?

I saw a study recently.  Those people who listened to the likes of the CDC, WHO, and Doctor Fauci were far less likely to contract or become very sick from Covid than those who don't.  Hardly surprising results, as clearly the best way to avoid getting very sick and dying would have been (and continues to be) listening to the experts like Dr Fauci, the CDC, and WHO.   

You may disagree and your certainly welcome to be "done with this" but I am firm of the opinion that listening to those people rises above opinion to a point of fact.    I appreciate that the messaging hasn't been perfect but when you consider that this is a novel situation (it's been a 100 years since the last pandemic) and it's been ongoing for nearly 2 years and through 2 presidents, I think that the federal leadership, for the most part, has been getting it right (with some notable exceptions from the prior President).   Certainly, the blemishes do not in any way justify the claims that Fauci is a clown or that the CDC and WHO are not to be believed. The people who hold that view are wrong and it's on them not the target of their disdain (at least in my opinion)

[Bob In PA]

I saw a study recently.  Those people who listened to the likes of the CDC, WHO, and Doctor Fauci were far less likely to contract or become very sick from Covid than those who don't.  Hardly surprising results, as clearly the best way to avoid getting very sick and dying would have been (and continues to be) listening to the experts like Dr Fauci, the CDC, and WHO.   

Rich: The results of that study may be helpful, but the study itself begs the question of whether CDC, WHO and Fauci have been consistent in their advice. They haven't.  But that is NOT a criticism. 

Anyone who truly thinks about these things knows that those people were doing their level best and striving to be as accurate/helpful as possible, BUT ALSO that they were apt to get one or two things wrong at first.

That is INHERENT in dealing with a "novel" disease.  The doctors do the best they can to predict (based on limited existing data and similar past experience) what will happen... but they're still only projections.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: The results of that study may be helpful, but the study itself begs the question of whether CDC, WHO and Fauci have been consistent in their advice. They haven't.  But that is NOT a criticism. 

Anyone who truly thinks about these things knows that those people were doing their level best and striving to be as accurate/helpful as possible, BUT ALSO that they were apt to get one or two things wrong at first.

That is INHERENT in dealing with a "novel" disease.  The doctors do the best they can to predict (based on limited existing data and similar past experience) what will happen... but they're still only projections.

Bob

On one thread (which I think was eventually moved here) Slugs (Paul) asked repeatedly about the chances of dying if you contracted Covid.   The interesting thing about that question is that there is no one size fits all answer as the answer is depended on when it was asked, where it was asked, and who asked it.   The thing about Covid is that it's been an ever-changing landscape (beyond just as we learned more about the disease).  There were major shifts in the Covid landscape.  Some were simply the seasonal decreases and increases.  Others involved treatments.  Others involved vaccinations.   Others involved the different variants.   

So you never were going to have a "consistent" message.  Rather (as you pointed out) the message would evolve and adapt as conditions changed and knowledge increased.   What I find frustrating, Bob is that you seem in some ways to be in a minority (or at best a small majority) in that you appreciate that things would change over time.   I see far too many people who look at the changes as proof that the leadership and the experts don't know what they are talking about.    The reality is that good public health leadership requires that positions change and adapt when the data or situation warrants.   

In some ways, I think war would be a good analogy.  Due to the fog and nature of war, even the best battle plans by the best generals in history would be changed as the battle played out.   In fact, those generals who failed to adjust to the realities of battle tended to lose far more than they would win. 

[Bob In PA]

there is no one size fits all answer as the answer is depended on when it was asked, where it was asked, and who asked it.

Rich: This part is crucial & deserves emphasis. 

It's a Herculean (maybe impossible-to-meet) challenge to effectively communicate a complicated subject to a mass audience with widely varying degrees of knowledge.

One caveat on this subject... although there is a lot of overlap, there are actually two separate and distinct issues we're dealing with: (1) consistent messaging; and (2) changing circumstances. 

When circumstances change, speakers must simultaneously: (1) state that there is a new message as a result of changed circumstances; (2) clearly identify what has changed; and (3) announce the new message.

If great care is not taken, it's easy for a new messaging resulting from changing circumstances to be confused with (or misidentified as) inconsistent messaging.

Bob