Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SaladShooter1 t1_j2l5d58 wrote

The problem I saw was a bunch of people talking down to people, belittling them all while yelling that everything they said was instantly science. If you’re going to do that, you better be right close to 100% of the time. I learned that straight out of college by dealing with workers with no engineering background. I can’t understand how someone can make it to the top of a public health authority and not understand that.

All they had to do was say things like “we believe at this time,” “this is the best info available,” “we’re hoping for” and stuff like that. Once someone is screamed at and told something is science, that person isn’t going to forget it when the science changes.

72

-downtone_ t1_j2ly4ev wrote

Yeah attacking people just makes them shell up and attack back. It never works to change anyone's mind. It's a garbage approach to socializing really.

27

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2mxzef wrote

Yeah essentially what was told was "This is x and you are stupid if you disagree and there is no point to ask questions since you wouldn't understand anyway. And you are Y (a label to shame people) if you have any doubts.".

13

Zetkin8 t1_j2qtkum wrote

You can't win with those people. If you are scientifically thorough and phrase things in a cautious way they claim that you don't know anything. You say something like

> as of now we have not observed a statistically significant number of adverse reactions

and they'll go

>So you're saying you don't know? You think the vaccine is safe but you can't promise me?

1

Chowdmouse t1_j2nauus wrote

I am a little confused by your comment, because in my recollection literally every single public statement had the disclaimer you mention- that it (was) based on the information available at the time.

−1

mmmmerlin t1_j2owj8x wrote

NPR had different kinds of public health experts from a city or hospital or health org on the air what seemed like every other hour on the daily pushing facts without disclaimers in an effort to get people to comply with public policy (vaccines, masks, whatever). You could tell from the messaging it was a public health campaign that had a messaging angle that did not want to show any policy weakness lest someone get doubts. While I understand why, it does not establish trust in people that already have misgivings or are wary about “facts” from the health care or pharmaceutical industries or government generally.

1

Chowdmouse t1_j2p2nx4 wrote

NPR? What does NPR have to do with it? And I do not mean any disrespect, but there is a big difference between scientists having a consensus based on the science and a public policy not wanting to “appear weak”???? I honestly think you are projecting your personal beliefs onto what other people are saying. What exactly does “appearing weak” mean to you? Why do you think medical professionals are afraid to appear weak? What does weak have to do with any of this? It is not a competition.

1

mmmmerlin t1_j2pawa8 wrote

NPR, news at 6, 9, CNN. There’s more than one source of public health being rolled out to the public. Some people get their info from Reddit sourced articles or Karen on FB. We are talking about the OP post. Why people don’t have faith in public policy. You are essentially ignoring other forms of public health messaging. Obviously some forms are better than others and the discerning individual is careful what they consume. But I think we are not talking about the careful, discerning person here, right? You misunderstand. I’m not taking about the people themselves appearing weak, like a character flaw. Imagine Public health policy is like a shield to the public. Inviting doubt may invite delay or non participation. Things that weaken the shield of the public health policy. Public health messaging (generally again, not quoting only the specific scientists you seemed to listen to) was saying things like “is PERFECTLY safe”, and other statements indicating something like 100% efficacy. We all know there are outliers. Not trusting the public with the actual numbers (providing risk data or any unknowns) was the position taken by many. I know this 100% safe, 100% effective position turned off some people in my circle. It’s not transparent. It’s not trustworthy to them.

1