COVID topic vol 2

[Loner]

There’s a difference between tailoring advice and lying. The mask propaganda was a lie. If it was important to get people not to buy/wear them, and it was, they should have appealed to people’s sympathy and sense of virtue (many people do still have one) and should have said outright that "Masks are useful, and we ask that people wait until further supplies arrive before buying”, or taken some other measure to insure that medical personnel get the first/remaining supplies (pass a law, etc.). Now, you’ll tell me, this might not have worked, or not well, and I’d agree, but this is in good part because public powers have already lied to the public for very long.

Telling a lie, like that one, has no effect at first, and it will work very well if people trust you, but when it gets revealed, in the longer term (it always does, and it does so now more quickly than before), it erodes trust, which prevents you from communicating effectively in the future to get the people to do what’s right. IOW, once you tell (many) a lie and destroy trust, you can only rely on manipulation to get people to do stuff, since they won’t make the difference between truths and lies, and won’t do what you say is the best.

Note indeed that lying doesn’t even work that well anymore in the public realm: people did rush on masks regardless of the fact that world-renowned PHD experts in whateverlogy told them. They stole masks from the hospital! A doctor friend of mind couldn’t find masks because healthy people walked in the hospital to steal masks.

I do respect your perspective. I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you some years ago. But all this is a lesson that I had to learn personally, and at great cost. I used to go relatively easy on lies, which I'd think of as white lies. I’m now extremely cautious because I’ve seen first hand the damage it can cause. I’m not radically honest, but if I'm honest, it’s only for cowardice, not because I don’t think it’s best.

[Loner]

*if i'm not honest.

[jacob]

Do you think the public would have been too stupid to understand that message? Do you think the results would have been much different in hoarding? Do you think people would have more trust in institutions about the subject today because honesty was the policy from the beginning?

If by "stupid" you mean that enough people would have proceeded to vacuum the shelves for N95s and other stuff like toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and bleach, then yes! Most people would have done the selfish thing and bought enough for themselves if not as much extra as item-limits would allow + a little extra for their extended family just in case. Some would have tried to profiteer on the situation and front-run the demand stampede.

In fact all that happened.

Also canned tomatoes, beans, flour, yeast, ... This despite people being assured that there would be enough for everybody insofar people kept buying their normal amounts. Of course upon naively telling people that, many immediately lined up in supermarkets and chaos ensued with empty shelves for days and weeks.

For sure, expert credibility was sacrificed in order to preserve PPE access for health care workers in the first few months, possibly deliberately, possibly w/o considering the possibility of permanent loss [of credibility], to prevent this from happening. I mean anyone who knew enough about germ theory to have internalized it a bit understood that some PPE is better than nothing for practically any communicable disease---but that's only a minority of people. The only reason I knew was because I spent a lot of time in 2017/18 reading about epidemics.

A more interesting lie would have been what would have happened insofar experts have claimed that COVID didn't exist i.e. if they had gone along with Trump's hoax narrative. Surely people would have begun to notice the lines outside hospitals ... but how long before people would have caught onto the fact that some novel disease had begun to claim thousands per day. This might have been an alternative way to handle it. Ultimately, rumors would have made it out of the hospitals though. However, I don't think the supply lines would have been shocked in the same way. Whose credibility would have been destroyed insofar that had been the choice of path?

Overall, though, I don't think there was a "winning" answer to any of this. This is not really something that can be handled tactically with carefully crafted messaging. This was a strategic failure in the sense that while the process and risk were known, those in charge decided it wasn't a priority.

[7Wannabe5]

I don't know if it's a guy/gal dichotomy or a J/P dichotomy or ??, but this focus or emotional reliance on TRUE FACTS I do not grok. You always have to update your plan based on the best information you have. There's no such thing as perfect information; everything is just probability. Doesn't matter whether your source turned out to be lying, stupid, or read yesterday's paper for the weather forecast. It's also important to bear in mind consensus on truth vs. evidence and the difference between contract and reality. Etc.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[J_]

Interesting. Credibility is lost quickly if governance is lying. Trump is the embodiment of lies, and at the same time he is elected and has still a huge support. But luckily the american system revealed in time his ignorance and personal misuse of his office.

Whatever is at stake, public governance has no other obligation than speak the truth. And has always the possibility to give reasons, clarifications and make clear that they have not reached a final conclusion.

[Alphaville]

If by "stupid" you mean that enough people would have proceeded to vacuum the shelves for N95s and other stuff like toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and bleach, then yes! Most people would have done the selfish thing and bought enough for themselves if not as much extra as item-limits would allow + a little extra for their extended family just in case. Some would have tried to profiteer on the situation and front-run the demand stampede.

In afact all that happened.

Also canned tomatoes, beans, flour, yeast, ... This despite people being assured that there would be enough for everybody insofar people kept buying their normal amounts. Of course upon naively telling people that, many immediately lined up in supermarkets and chaos ensued with empty shelves for days and weeks.

"the nash equilibrium made me do it"

(it really did)

[Ego]

Recently we've been experiencing new forms of the Noble Lie...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/belg ... -2x9wklf7v

Belgium

Shutting shops at the end of October was a “psychological shock” tactic to bring home the need for restrictions to arrest the spread of the virus, the country’s health minister has admitted.

Non-essential retailers were forced to close at the end of October as infection rates reached the highest level in Europe and hospital admissions threatened to overwhelm intensive care units. Shops will reopen today after a decline in infections.

Frank Vandenbroucke told the broadcaster VRT that, with masks and social distancing, “shopping does not really involve any risk”.

Now we are seeing a lot of Noble Silence among scientists who avoid giving oxygen to certain theories. That leaves the somewhat literate proponents to appear as if they know what they are talking about. For example, spike proteins, placentas, vaccinations and infertility.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Silence

.

[ZAFCorrection]

@7w5

No doubt you are correct. But let's not throw the baby with the bathwater. Loosening up your limits on P(true|someone said it) is also the path to MAGA truthiness.

As to the issue of lying about the masks, it was a remarkably pointless effort given how everything is produced by a just-in-time manufacturing system. A trivial number of contrarians can cause a shortfall of supply no matter what we are talking about. The technocrats probably should have noted that and saved their credibility, but my suspicion is the impulse to "act" and "control the situation" was too great to not try to fix the problem.

The mask supply situation is particularly silly since the vast majority of people in the US don't even interact with masks. Thus, the supply chain is calibrated tiny for that small fraction which does use them. A pandemic hits and now suddenly that market potentially goes to ~100% of the population. Contrarian hoarders, even if they make up a small fraction of the general population, could still generate a demand increase much greater than the previously established market size given how few people used to use masks.

[Campitor]

Since PPE/Sanitizer hoarding was impossible to prevent(a society wide prisoner's dilemma), wouldn't this have been the perfect scenario to allow for price increases to reflect the true scarcity of PPEs and Sanitizers? Selling PPE/Sanitizer at the everyday low price practically guaranteed the demand would outstrip the supply. By raising prices, even temporarily, it may have lessened the hoarding.

I know there are many arguments for and against prices increases during emergencies but as far as I know limiting prices has never resulted in less scarcity. Increasing prices prevents hoarding in many cases even if it doesn't work perfectly.

I know discussions of price increases during emergencies raises the ire in most people but its not like we aren't familiar with the ridiculously long free ice-cream queues despite the abundance of ice-cream available at every grocery store. Prices during emergencies matter.

[George the original one]

Disagree, COVID hospitalization rates and fatality rate expectations were extremely exaggerated based on what we know today.

Hospitalization rates are lower, but, for the USA, we've now exceeded 7 years worth of flu deaths. It is very likely 1 in 1,000 will be dead by Jan 1. In Trump's original acknowledgement of how bad COVID-19 would be, he said we'd be doing good if we got away with 100,000-200,000 deaths and today we're at 279,000.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[Lemon]

@chenda and @jacob
If the powers that be, back in March, put out the message: Please don't purchase/hoard medical grade PPE because we need it for our medical professionals who are saving your lives, instead here's a guide to make your own face covering which is effective to reduce droplet exposure.

Do you think the public would have been too stupid to understand that message? Do you think the results would have been much different in hoarding? Do you think people would have more trust in institutions about the subject today because honesty was the policy from the beginning?

The public would probably understand it. But definitely enough people would read it as 'PPE works buy it and protect my family'

Also at the time there was a legitimate concern about risk compensation and this being more fomite spread based than aerosol/droplet spread.
N95s also don't protect you any more than a more standard mask if you don't know how to fit them - judging by the way I see them worn in public that applies to most of the public still.

Humans behave far from rationally and larger groups that only gets worse, particularly in a crisis. They also tend to do whatever they want regardless of what you tell them ruthlessly looking for inconsistencies in anything they don't want to do (or the person telling them about it). Failing that flat out ignoring and denial.
@Jacob on your point about diabetes, we do tell people with diabetes to modify their diet and that if they do it well enough that can sometimes even reverse the condition. But most people don't modify *enough* to move the needle. Even worse you can get risk compensation so someone might stop taking their pills because they have started eating 1 apple a day instead of the 3rd chocolate bar. This tends not to end well.

Obsessing over the messenger's personal actions is also really not that helpful. Just because a doctor is fat doesn't mean they don't know the evidence about weight loss or the risks of extra weight. It just means they like everyone have personal flaws, not that the advice is poor/wrong.

@Ego Maybe I am wired differently but I don't really see a problem with trying to modify population behaviour in a pandemic scenario. One of the biggest issues is private indoor household mixing in home which is impossible to police. If you can prime the public not to do it with other measures, depending on the cost I can see it totally being worth it. This is why in the UK a garden is treated differently to a public park. Logically there is no risk difference if you take the same precautions. But that doesn't happen. People semi enclose the garden space, put patio heaters up, pop in to the house to use the loo, then maybe make the tea...etc.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[Campitor]

Without a basis in truth, it's impossible for healers to help heal. IMO the leadership of US health care has violated a most sacred trust, and that's not acceptable.

I 100% agree. When medical professionals lie it erodes the public trust. And sadly other medical/scientific professions will get smeared with the same broad brush. The public has confirmation that medical professionals will lie when their is incentive to do so. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.

[UK-with-kids]

One-size-fits-all, that is, advice given to a public audience is much more difficult (requires more considerations of network effects) than advice giving to an individual. ..... example would be the standard advice for treating diabetes. Here people are universally taught how to inject and dose insulin according to blood sugar measurements. Why? Because teaching people too radically change their diet is unlikely to be successful---not because it doesn't work in theory but because people fail in practice.

So when people 'miraculously' manage to reverse their diabetes it isn't really that amazing or against the expected medical science, it's just contrary to what people are assumed to be capable of through willpower and self agency? Does this perhaps mean that when somebody is diagnosed as "pre-diabetic" and advised to change their diet, that they in fact have a minor level of the condition and the doctors are testing whether they can fix it themselves. If they show they can't then they'll be taught how to inject in a few months time.

[nomadscientist]

Glad to be ruled by such hyperintelligent liars, whose gyrations have given us the worst outcome of any of the world's thought-bubbles.

[jacob]

The problem is not the thought-bubbles but the derp-bubbles. "Epidemic" according to my pig-latin understanding of the word means something like having to do with "all the people". This means that public health advice must account for "fixing stupid" because "stupid" is part of human behavior and more widespread than we'd like to believe or admit both in ourselves and in others.

An infectious disease does not follow the same individualist free market structure or rules where rational agents make informed arms-length transactions with each other. Applying the same ideological structure (maximum information, free individual choice) to an infectious disease which obeys a different structure should predictably fail. Major mistakes are not made so much when people are wrong but when people are wrong while insisting they're right.

(Indeed, the worst hit areas in the world are indeed those where "individuals make up their own minds" thus unfortunately suggesting that the individualistic free market doctrine is the least capable of dealing with epidemics. It is what it is. This ideology has very many other benefits but keeping down the case and death numbers is not one of them. In particular it is almost by construction bad at preventing public health problems. How could it be otherwise when the ideological belief is that public = sum of individuals? It ignores all the network links that the disease happily exploits.)

Insofar "stupid" is defined as a behavior that "hurts oneself and hurts others", it is clear that an infectious disease is highly compatible with "stupid" behavior. I really shouldn't need to say this but stupid has little to do with education or IQ. It is at best correlated, but it's a trait of its own.

A [stupid] person can know all the disease theory and pass the test on paper but still proceed to constantly fiddle with the outside nose part of their mask... then pull it down and use those same fingers that touched the area most likely to harbor vira to pick up a snack and stuff it into their mouth before pulling their mask up again. While masks work in theory, they don't work on "stupid", when theory is not translated into "praxis".

For myself, I'd obviously prefer as much information as possible detailing the pros and cons. Much like 19th century advertising that explained the benefits of a product in no less than 500 words. I'd read it all too and probably do further research until I get bored. Shit, I read the back of cornflakes boxes. However, I also know that the average person only reads 1.5 sentences before tuning out mentally so that whatever information that is presented has to be slimmed down to slogan length. I know that people buy their cornflakes based on emotive advertising rather than detailed nutrition research.

Since most of us don't have contextual knowledge of infectious diseases or much of anything else outside of our specialization, we're at most at the Copying and Comparing stage of insight. We'll Copy whatever we see others do. And we'll Compare to see if they're consistent. (While some individuals may go further than this and Compile and Compute ... as demonstrated in these COVID threads, the majority of the public does not.)

Experts and leaders succeeded on the first (Copy) by giving simplistic context-free advice that could be understood by everybody, but failed on the second (Compare) by breaking their own rules and getting caught on camera. They should have understood that their behavior communicated as much if not more than what they were saying. This is also the case for those of us who have researched this beyond slogans and youtube videos. What we do as individuals set an example for what friends and family will Copy. (This is similar to the investment problem---The reason I don't give out my personal portfolio details is because I know at least one uninformed person will Copy it w/o understanding why it is what it is.)

Because ideology is a strong part of personal theory of mind and identity, I will try hard to avoid getting into further debates about individual points made above. I doubt it will lead to anyone changing their mind anyway and I'm likely just going to repeat myself if I do so. Consider the points above to be mutually interdependent and comprehensive. They do not exist in isolation. I do not seek to win this argument.

[subgard]

I can remember in February and March, the experts saying
"Mask wearing is more for protecting others from you if you're infectious."
and outright saying, "We advise the public not to wear masks because healthcare workers need them"
Also "We don't know how effective mask wearing is because there's actually been few studies on it, and those have been inconclusive."

Then, later "You should wear a mask because it couldn't hurt, and might help"

And later "It definitely does help, wear a mask."

Either I witnessed a carefully crafted plan of deception on the scale of government conspiracy theories, or I simply witnessed the public health community getting up to speed on a threat that hadn't been seen for a century.

[nomadscientist]

The West's response has been an utter disaster combining most of the disadvantages of inaction and of effective action, as well as novel disadvantages.

If the ends justify the means, let us at least judge them by their ends.

"Experts" have not been the only drivers of this atrocity, but institutionally they have certainly put their credibility behind it.